No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 14, 2006 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District 4 HARRY E. DIEZEL Kempsville - District 2 ROBERTM. DYER, Centerville - District 1 REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall District 3 RICHARD A. MADDOX, Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE, Princess Anne - District 7 PETER W. SCHMIDT, At -Large RON A. VILLANUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY MANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE CITY ATTORNEY - LESLIE L. LILLEY CITY CLERK - RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 14 February 2006 CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 234568005 PHONE: (757) 427-4303 FAX (757) 426-5669 E- MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov. com I. CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING - Conference Room - 1:00 PAVL A. BIKEWAYS and TRAILS COMMITTEE Fred Adams -Chairman, Bicycles and Trails Advisory Committee II. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING A. FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFFING and DEPLOYMENT Chief Greg Cade, Fire Department III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 2:30 PM II A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend David Howard Pastor, Brook Baptist Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA I. ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to AMEND the City Code: February7, 2006 a) § 2-4 re recognition of Police, Fire and Rescue Squads as part of the Public Safety Program for the purposes of Workers Compensation. b) § 36-172 to increase the taxicab meter drop fee from $1.85 to $2.25 for the first eighth of a mile. 2. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute an agreement between the City and the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) to participate in the Sponsoring Partnerships and Revitalizing Communities (SPARC) Home Ownership program. 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the execution of a Cost Participation Agreement (with the City's share in the amount of $388,019) between the City and Ocean Properties re the construction of improvements to Elbow Road Extended Phase II at Round Hill Drive in the proposed Hillcrest Landing subdivision. J. PLANNING Application of ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES, INC. to extend the date ninety (90) days to May 23, 2006, for satisfying the conditions re discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of a 20-foot Alley, Block 71, at 29'h Street and Pacific Avenue to incorporate this area into adjoining parcels. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 2. Application of BONNEY G. BRIGHT for Modification and Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit expansion (approved by City Council on November 28, 2000) at Princess Anne Road and Club Road. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 3. Application of JON and TAMMY CARLSON for the enlargement of a Nonconforming Use re demolition of an existing garage apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling at 304 C 271h Street (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 4. Applications of HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C. at 2817 Seaboard Road (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) a. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-20 Residential District to develop single-family homes b. 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) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 5. Application of CORPORATE WOODS ASSOCIATES LLC for a Change of Zoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial District to 0-2 Office District at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive to correct a zoning boundary line and provide uniform zoning for the property. (DISTRICT 2- KEMPSVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 6. Application of DOUGLAS W. and VALERIE HUMPHREY and ALLAN W. BROCK, JR. at 6428 and 6432 Knotts Island Road: (DISTRICT 7 / PRINCESS ANNE) C. Conditional Use Permit for alternative residential development d. 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) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL K. L. M. 7. Application of PASTOR WARREN E. SINGLETON (Abounding Grace Assembly) for a Conditional Use Permit re a church at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) W 10 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of DESTINY LIFE CENTER for a Conditional Use Permit re a church in an existing movie theatre at 4554 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Suite 201 (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of SHURGUARD for a Conditional Use Permit re mini -warehouses at 3201 Holland Road (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION: Ordinances re the CLEAR ZONE: APPROVAL a. AMEND §§ 501, 901, and 1001 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) by prohibiting uses designated as incompatible in the portions of residential, business and industrial zoning districts b. AMEND and REORDAIN the APZ-1 Use and Acquisition Plan to include these zones within the provisions of the Plan RECOMMENDATION: APPOINTMENTS APPROVAL BEACHES and WATERWAYS COMMISSION INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE — PPEA MEAL TAX TASK FORCE RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAITON (VBCDC) UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. Consider RESCHEDULING the regular Session of City Council a. May 2, 2006 Councilmanic Election N. 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: Virginia Relay Center at 1-800-828-1120 Agenda 2/8/06 slb www.vbgov.com CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING - Conference Room - 1:00 PM A. BIKEWAYS and TRAILS COMMITTEE Fred Adams -Chairman, Bicycles and Trails Advisory Committee II. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING A. FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFFING and DEPLOYMENT Chief Greg Cade, Fire Department III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS V. INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - Conference Room - 2:30 PM VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend David Howard Pastor, Brook Baptist Church 6:00 PM II C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION February 7, 2006 11 410 11PS01�tftrilt CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's Imowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. H. CONSENT AGENDA ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to AMEND the City Code: a) § 2-4 re recognition of Police, Fire and Rescue Squads as part of the Public Safety Program for the purposes of Workers Compensation. b) § 36-172 to increase the taxicab meter drop fee from $1.85 to $2.25 for the first eighth of a mile. 2. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute an agreement between the City and the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) to participate in the Sponsoring Partnerships and Revitalizing Communities (SPARC) Home Ownership program. 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the execution of a Cost Participation Agreement (with the City's share in the amount of $388,019) between the City and Ocean Properties re the construction of improvements to Elbow Road Extended Phase II at Round Hill Drive in the proposed Hillcrest Landing subdivision. � - 7 �x sip �w CITY OF VIRGINIA, BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Section 2-4 of the City Code Pertaining to Recognition of Public Safety Volunteers MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: State law permits City Council, by ordinance, to extend Workers' Compensation coverage to public safety volunteers. The City Code currently provides such coverage to members of volunteer fire departments, among others, but coverage has not been extended to firefighters who volunteer their services directly to the City and are not members of a volunteer fire department. Community Emergency Response Team volunteers also currently lack Workers' Compensation coverage. ■ Considerations: This amendment provides Workers' Compensation coverage to (1) volunteer firefighters who donate their services directly to the City and are not members of a volunteer fire department; and (2) Community Emergency Response Team volunteers. ■ Public Information: To be advertised in the same manner as other items on Council's Agenda. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department Yb— City Manager: V cylt 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND § 2-4 OF THE CITY CODE 2 PERTAINING TO RECOGNITION OF POLICE, FIRE 3 COMPANIES AND RESCUE SQUADS AS PART OF PUBLIC 4 SAFETY PROGRAM 5 6 SECTION AMENDED: § 2-4 8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 9 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 10 11 That Section 2-4 of the City Code is hereby amended and 12 reordained, to read as follows: 13 Sec. 2-4. Recognition of police, fire companies and rescue squads 14 as part of public safety progragm. 15 16 The following city departments, police agencies and chartered 17 and nonchartered fire companies and rescue squad organizations are 18 recognized and acknowledged to be an integral part of the official 19 public safety program of the City, and i-In gratitude to and in 20 recognition of the valuable and necessary services performed by the 21 volunteer firefighters, volunteer lifesaving or rescue squad 22 members, volunteer law -enforcement chaplains, auxiliary police 23 volunteer emergency medical technicians, members of volunteer 24 search and rescue organizations, and volunteer members of communit 25 emergency response teams, volunteers for the following 26 organizations—peliee, fire eempe i.-es and Eeseide squads and the 27 ind-i-vLidaal Faeffiber-s the -reef, b eth—prefesslenal and =ve lidnr , whJ 28 s er-viee the —e i t y, the f e le Ling p e l f e-e—a genere s anel eliaEtered-=ram 29 '' - - - ized n ek ,, e Je to be e�tpe�s-e�--�—r-e_s-c � �= � , -� 30 an :integral: part of t-he-effre-ial publie-safety pr-eg-rram of the eit,, �1 , 31 anel the d e 1nte r f comer se f these p e l i e e, and eharteEed and 1 32 nenehartered-frr-e—eempari-es and—r�cide squads, shall be deemed 33 employees for the purposes of the Virginia Workers' Compensation 34 Act: 35 Blackwater Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, 36 Incorporated. 37 Chesapeake Beach Volunteer Fire and Rescue Department, 38 Incorporated. 39 Creeds Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, Incorporated. 40 Davis Corner Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, 41 Incorporated. 42 Green Run Volunteer Fire Company. 43 Kempsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Incorporated. 44 London Bridge Volunteer Fire Department, Incorporated. 45 Ocean Park Volunteer Fire and Rescue Unit, Incorporated. 46 Oceana Volunteer Fire Department, Incorporated. 47 Plaza Volunteer Fire Company and Rescue Squad, Incorporated. 48 Princess Anne Courthouse Volunteer Rescue Squad and Fire 49 Department, Incorporated. 50 Sandbridge Rescue and Fire, Incorporated. 51 Thalia Volunteer Fire Department, Incorporated. 52 Virginia Beach Auxiliary Police. 53 Virginia Beach Borough Volunteer Fire Department, Incorporated. 54 Virginia Beach Rescue Squad, Incorporated. 55 Virginia Beach Volunteer Law Enforcement Chaplains and Chaplains' 2 56 Aides. 57 Virginia Beach Volunteer Water Rescue Team. 58 Gity of Vir-gini Dea^':, Virginia Beach Department of Emergency 59 Medical Services. 60 Virginia Beach Fire Department. 61 Virginia Beach Office of Volunteer Resources. 62 COMMENT 63 This amendment provides Workers' Compensation coverage to (1) volunteer firefighters who 64 donate their services directly to the City and are not members of a volunteer fire department; and (2) 65 Community Emergency Response Team volunteers. 66 67 68 69 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 70 Virginia, on this day of , 2006. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: S-i-%2- C, Fire Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney s Office CA-9854 ORDRES/PROPOSED/2-4 Public Safety WC ORD R-5 January 20, 2006 3 �w«U 4 *+Y'7�� 1z; i} CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend City Code Section 36-172 to Increase the Taxicab Meter Drop Fee from $1.85 to $2.25 for the First Eighth of a Mile MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: On December 6, 2005, Council heard a proposal from several taxicab companies to increase the meter drop fee from $1.85 to $2.50. The meter drop fee is the charge for the first eighth of a mile. The taxicab companies recommended the rate increase based on increased cost of living and rising gasoline and insurance prices. At the time, Management Services did not recommend raising the rates. After hearing from several taxicab owners, Council appointed two Council liaisons to work with City staff and representatives from the taxicab companies to suggest a rate to Council. Considerations: Council members Wilson and Schmidt met with City staff, and they have recommended an increase in the meter drop fee from $1.85 to $2.25. This will result in rates comparable to surrounding jurisdictions. Several taxicab companies have indicated that they are satisfied with this increase. ■ Public Information: Council held a public hearing on February 7, 2006, as required by the City Code. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Virginian Pilot, and the taxicab companies were asked to place notification of the public hearing in their taxicabs so that customers would be made aware of the hearing. Other pubic information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: Council could leave the meter drop fee at $1.85 or change the meter drop fee to an amount other than $2.25. ■ Recommendations: Approve the ordinance and increase the meter drop fee for taxicabs from $1.85 to $2.25. ■ Attachments: Letter from Catheryn Whitesell to Taxicab Companies Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department(Agency: Management Service& City Manager: f`—'� 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CITY CODE SECTION 2 36-172 TO INCREASE THE TAXICAB METER 3 DROP FEE FROM $1.85 TO $2.25 FOR THE 4 FIRST EIGHTH OF A MILE 5 6 SECTION AMENDED: § 36-172 7 8 That Section 36-172 of the City Code is hereby amended and 9 reordained, to read as follows: 10 Sec. 36-172. Maximum rates for taxicabs. 11 (a) No person owning, operating, controlling or driving a 12 taxicab within the city shall charge an amount to exceed the 13 following rates of fare: 14 (1) For the first one -eighth of a mile or fraction 15 thereof . . . $ 1.-85 $2.25 16 (2) For each succeeding one -eighth of a mile or 17 fraction thereof 0.25 18 (3) Trunk charge . . . 0.50 19 (4) For each minute of waiting time . . . 0.25 20 If hired on an hourly basis, the rate of thirteen dollars 21 and eighty cents ($13.80) per hour shall apply. 22 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, 23 taxicabs bringing passengers into this city from without the 24 city shall charge the rates prescribed by the city or county in 25 which they are licensed. 26 (c) Any application for a fare increase under this section 27 shall include justification for such fare increase and such 28 financial and operating information as may be requested by the 29 city manager. The city council shall hold a public hearing 30 before acting on any such application for a fare increase, after 31 public notice for at least ten (10) days. 32 COMMENT: 33 This ordinance increases the meter drop fee from $1.85 to $2.25 for the first eighth of a 34 mile. This increase is due to an increased cost of living and rising gasoline and insurance prices. 35 36 37 Accepted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 38 Virginia on the day of , 2006. Approved as to Content: Management Services Approved as to Content: !Police Department Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney's' ffice CA9911 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Proposed\Taxi Meter Drop Fee ORD R-2 February 2, 2006 N BE'C CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM 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 Program MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: The promotion of an increased rate of home ownership, as well as home ownership opportunities for residents from low and moderate -income households and workforce housing is a goal of the City's Department 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. The VHDA has made available on a competitive basis low interest mortgage financing for first time home ownership opportunities under a program known as SPARC (Sponsoring Partnerships and Revitalizing Communities). This financing source will afford approximately 25 Virginia Beach households, and/or Virginia Beach municipal employees the opportunity to make home ownership in Virginia Beach a reality. The City Council approved prior agreements with VHDA for SPARC in January 2002, 2004 and 2005. These agreements resulted in approximately 40 low and moderate -income households receiving SPARC funds to become first time homeowners. The SPARC V funds will provide similar first time home ownership opportunities by providing below market rate mortgage financing. ■ 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 applicants for consideration for a VHDA loan. The City will not be involved in the approval or denial of applications for a VHDA loan. ■ ■ C ■ The attached ordinance authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with VHDA to participate in SPARC Home Ownership Program. 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 in the program with VHDA. Recommendations: Approval of the Ordinance is recommended Attachments: Ordinance Agreement Recommended Action: Ap Submitting Department/Agency: Di City Manager: of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation W] 1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY 2 MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN 3 THE CITY AND THE VIRGINIA HOUSING 4 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE IN 5 THE SPARC HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM 6 7 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach, through its 8 Department of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, currently 9 operates several programs to promote home ownership for low and 10 moderate -income persons; 11 WHEREAS, the City desires to continue promoting its 12 goal of home ownership for its citizens with low and moderate- 13 incomes and for its municipal workforce to provide an 14 opportunity to live where they work; 15 WHEREAS, the Virginia Housing Development Authority 16 ("VHDA") has reserved funds which can be made available to 17 qualified Virginia Beach low and moderate income citizens and 18 municipal workers through the City's participation in the VHDA's 19 Sponsoring Partnerships and Revitalizing Communities ("SPARC") 20 Home Ownership Program; 21 WHEREAS, the City's participation in the SPARC Home 22 Ownership Program requires the execution of an agreement with 23 the VHDA; and 1 24 WHEREAS, the City's Department of Housing and 25 Neighborhood Preservation has determined that the City's 26 participation in the SPARC Home Ownership Program will provide 27 an additional and much needed financing source for affordable 28 first-time home ownership opportunities for its citizens and 29 municipal workers. 30 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE 31 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 32 That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute 33 an agreement between the City and the Virginia Housing 34 Development Authority ("VHDA") to participate in the operation 35 of the VHDA's Sponsoring Partnerships and Revitalizing 36 Communities ("SPARC") First -Time Home Ownership Program in 37 substantially the same form as attached hereto and with such 38 additional terms and conditions as may be acceptable to the City 39 Manager and the City Attorney. 40 V, 40 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 41 Virginia, on the day of CA-9859 Date February 2, 2006 H:\0I0\REAL ESTATE\HNPADMIN\SPARC\SPARC.ORD2006.doc 3 2006. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: t � Depa of Housing & Neiq or ood Preservation APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFTIE Y: City; ttorn %r i Li COPY VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPARC PROGRAM - Round 5 HOMEOWNERSHIP PROJECT PERMANENT MORTGAGE FINANCING COMMITMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of this 27`h day of January, 2006, 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 WHEREAS, the Authority desires to provide such financing subject to the terms and conditions set forth below: 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 Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) 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. 2. Reservation Period. Subject to the provisions hereof, the Reserved Funds will be reserved for the Sponsor until June 30, 2007; provided that if any portion of the Reserved Funds are not committed for mortgage loans by June 30, 2007, 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. 3. 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: $1,500,000 at one half percent (.50%) below the applicable rate for the Authority's tax-exempt bond program. $1,500,000 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. 4. 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 Homes 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. . 5. Eli ig bility 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. 6. 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 June 30, 2007, (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. 7. Announcements and Publicity. The Sponsor shall give the Authority reasonable notice of and right to approve in advance all communication to the press or the general public (including, without limitation, press releases, public announcements, advertisements, promotional materials, signage, interviews in newspapers or on television or radio, and promotional and publicity events) by or on behalf of the Sponsor regarding the Homes or the financing provided by the Authority pursuant to this Agreement. Such right of approval shall include, but not be limited to, the right to approve the content, appearance, timing, manner of release or distribution, recipients, participants, and location, as applicable, of each such communication. The Sponsor shall give the Authority the opportunity to participate in all releases and distributions of such communication, all interviews in newspapers or on television or radio, and all promotional and publicity events regarding the Homes or such financing and shall otherwise coordinate and cooperate with the Authority with respect to all such communication. 8. 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: Sharon Prescott. 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). 9. 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. Conflict of Interest Provisions. No board member, officer or employee of Sponsor (or immediate family member of such individual) shall be eligible to receive an allocation of the reserved funds without the prior written approval of the Authority. 12. 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. 13. 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: L. Ritenour ag Director of Development AUTHORITY f°i�..?� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the execution of a Cost Participation Agreement for the construction of a regional stormwater management facility for Elbow Road Extended Phase II (CIP 2-152) MEETING DATE: February 14 ■ Background: On January 9, 2003, the proposed Hillcrest Landing subdivision was approved. The subdivision is located near the intersection of Elbow Road and Round Hill Drive adjacent to the Elbow Road Extended Phase 11 (CIP 2-152) project. The developer has previously agreed to reconfigure the intersection of the subdivision entrance with Round Hill Drive to accommodate the Elbow Road Extended Phase II (CIP 2-152) design. This cost participation agreement will allow the construction of a regional stormwater management facility for Elbow Road Extended Phase II (CIP 2-152) and the proposed Hillcrest Landing subdivision. ■ Considerations: Pursuant to the terms of the proposed Cost Participation Agreement, the regional stormwater management facility would be completed by Ocean Properties, L.L.C. during the current construction of the Hillcrest Landing subdivision. The City's cost amount of $388,019 is based on the percentage of drainage from the proposed Elbow Road versus the percentage of drainage from the subdivision. The total estimated cost for constructing the shared regional facility is $589,425. By combining the stormwater management into a regional facility, the City would save approximately $331,981 compared to the cost to construct a separate facility for Elbow Road Extended Phase II (CIP 2-152) in 2010. ■ Public Information: The City has held several public meetings on the Elbow Road Extended Phase II (CIP 2-152) project. The most recent was the Design Public Hearing on January 13, 2005. The private owner of the adjoining property has been notified of the proposed stormwater management facility. ■ Alternatives: Do not approve the execution of the Cost Participation Agreement, requiring the stormwater management facility to be expanded in the future as part of the Elbow Road Extended Phase II (CIP 2-152) construction at 100% City expense. The estimate for the additional improvements (including expansion into poor soil conditions, demolition, etc.) is $720,000 in 2010. ■ Recommendations: Staff recommends Council adopt the Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a Cost Participation Agreement. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Facility Map Location Map Summary of Terms Recommended Action: Approve Ordinance and Execute Agreement Submitting Depa ent/Agen : Public Works/Engineering City Manager: Yn I ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION 2 OF A COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT 3 BETWEEN THE CITY AND OCEAN 4 PROPERTIES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 5 IMPROVEMENTS TO ELBOW ROAD EXTENDED 6 PHASE II ROAD PROJECT (CIP 2-152) 7 AND HILLCREST LANDING SUBDIVISION 8 9 10 11 WHEREAS, Ocean Properties, L.L.C., a Virginia limited 12 liability company ("Developer"), the developer of the Hillcrest 13 Landing subdivision located along Elbow Road in the City of 14 Virginia Beach, is required to construct a stormwater management 15 facility; 16 WHEREAS, the City is in the process of realigning, improving 17 and extending Elbow Road pursuant to the project known as Elbow 18 Road Extended Phase II Project (CIP 2-152) (the "Road Project"); 19 and 20 WHEREAS, the City has requested that Developer construct the 21 stormwater management facility for Hillcrest Landing (the "SWMF") 22 with larger stormwater management capacity than is necessary to 23 provide stormwater management to Hillcrest Landing; and 24 WHEREAS, the City's requested improvements are outlined on 25 Exhibit A (the "SWMF Improvements"); and 26 WHEREAS, such additional drainage capacity in the SWMF is of 27 value to the City in providing stormwater management for the Road 28 Project. 1 29 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 30 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 31 That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a cost 32 participation agreement between the City and Developer for 33 construction of a stormwater management facility in accordance with 34 the Summary of Terms for the Cost Participation Agreement, attached 35 hereto, and containing other terms as are acceptable to the City 36 Manager and approved by the City Attorney. 37 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 38 Virginia, on the day of 2006. CA-9714 F:\Data\ATY\OID\RE\Acq\WORKING-DEEDS\ELBOW\StormwaterCostParticipation\HillcrestLanding0rd.doc R-1 1/30/06 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: &Ll City Attorney' OOf ice 2 CERTIFIED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: (�a I A AtlL ,qj Department of Finance SUMMARY OF TERMS ELBOW ROAD EXTENDED PHASE II (CEP 2-152) AND HILLCREST LANDING COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT DEVELOPER: COST PARTICIPANT: Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Hillcrest Landing, L.L.C. City of Virginia Beach CONSTRUCTION COSTS: Payment by the City to Ocean Properties, L.L.C. in the amount of $388,019.00. All bonds must be posted prior to payment by the City. Payment will be made within thirty days after i) completion of the improvements in accordance with the approved plans, ii) acceptance by the City, and iii) submission by Developer of a requisition and invoices for the costs. CHANGE ORDERS: Costs associated with any Change Order will be negotiated at the time of the discovery of an unforeseen condition or at the time of any City initiated request for a change. Change Orders must be in writing and be mutually agreed upon. Change Orders may not exceed the total amount to be paid by the City by more than $97,005 (25% of original) without the advance written approval of City Council. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: Developer is required to post a performance bond, pay the standard inspection fees. Developer will perform all preliminary site work including surveying and stakeout, clearing, grading, etc. necessary for the construction of the project. Developer will construct a 477,836.4 ft3 stormwater management facility allowing the facility to function as a regional basin. Developer will construct all erosion and sediment control features necessary for the project. Once constructed, the City shall have the right to use the facility for Elbow Road Extended Phase II stormwater management. The City shall be responsible for inspecting the improvements and will have the permanent right to maintain flow and reasonable right of access for such inspections and maintenance. Developer, or his successors, shall be responsible for landscape maintenance and bank stabilization. �O' impoundment easement to be dedicated to the City of Urginia Beach Facility Map SCALE: 1 " = 150' 0' 150' 300' J - Open space to be dedicated to Homeowners ' Association Property dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach Q� WARE NECK DR. W v SITE �o �0 0 lye Q O Stumpy Lake O y y G. \ Location Map ` \ SCALE: 1 " = 600' \ `\ 8 0' 600' 1,200' Pl~ on INAN-Z" W J. PLANNING Application of ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES, INC. to extend the date ninety (90) days to May 23, 2006, for satisfying the conditions re discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of a 20-foot Alley, Block 71, at 29 %2 Street and Pacific Avenue to incorporate this area into adjoining parcels. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 2. Application of BONNEY G. BRIGHT for Modification and Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit expansion (approved by City Council on November 28, 2000) at Princess Anne Road and Club Road. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 3. Application of JON and TAMMY CARLSON for the enlargement of a Nonconforming Use re demolition of an existing garage apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling at 304 C 27th Street (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 4. Applications of HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C. at 2817 Seaboard Road (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) a. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-20 Residential District to develop single-family homes b. 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) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 5. Application of CORPORATE WOODS ASSOCIATES LLC for a Change of Zoning District Classification from I-1 Light Industrial District to 0-2 Office District at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive to correct a zoning boundary line and provide uniform zoning for the property. (DISTRICT 2- KEMPSVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 6. Application of DOUGLAS W. and VALERIE HUMPHREY and ALLAN W. BROCK, JR. at 6428 and 6432 Knotts Island Road: (DISTRICT 7 / PRINCESS ANNE) Conditional Use Permit for alternative residential development d. 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) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 7. Application of PASTOR WARREN E. SINGLETON (Abounding Grace Assembly) for a Conditional Use Permit re a church at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 8. Application of DESTINY LIFE CENTER for a Conditional Use Permit re a church in an existing movie theatre at 4554 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Suite 201 (DISTRICT 4— BAYSIDE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 9. Application of SHURGUARD for a Conditional Use Permit re mini -warehouses at 3201 Holland Road (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION: 10. Ordinances re the CLEAR ZONE: APPROVAL a. AMEND §§ 501, 901, and 1001 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) by prohibiting uses designated as incompatible in the portions of residential, business and industrial zoning districts b. AMEND and REORDAIN the APZ-1 Use and Acquisition Plan to include these zones within the provisions of the Plan RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. The fol- lowing applications will be heard: DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Heron Ridge Properties 11, L.L.C. Application: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agri- cultural to Conditional R-20 Residential at 2817 Sea- board Road (GPINs 24036750380000; 24036647250000). The Comprehensive Plan desig- nates this site as being within the Princess Anne Transi- tion Area, suitable for cluster housing using creative planning and development techniques. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop single-family homes. Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdi- vision for Heron Ridge Properties 11, L.L.C., at 2817 Seaboard Road (GPINs 24036750380000;24036647250000). Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. Application: Conditional Use Permit for alternative residential development at 6428 and 6432 Knotts Island Road (GPINs 23379109210000; 23379201180000 Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdi- vision for Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr., at 6428 and 6432 Knotts Island Road (GPINs 23379109210000; 23379201180000). Bonney G. Bright Application: Modification and Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit expansion approved by City Council on November 28, 2000 on the east side of Princess Anne Road. (GPIN 23176213270000; 23177232590000; 23176125200000) DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Jon & Tammy Carlson Application: Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use at 304 C 27th Street (GPIN 24280056200000). CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Ordinance to amend Sections 501, 901, and 1001 of the City Zoning Ordinance by prohibiting uses desig- nated as incompatible in the portions of Residential, Business, and Industrial Zoning Districts within the Clear Zone. DISTRICT 2- KEMPSVILLE Corporate Woods Associates LLC Application: Change of Zoning District Classification from 1-1 Light Industrial to 0-2 Office at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive (GPIN 14678196750000). The Comprehensive Plan desig- nates this site as being within Strategic Growth Area #4, Bonney Road West Corridor, suitable for mixed use development including office, business, hotel, institu- tional and a mix of residential types. The purpose of this rezoning is to correct a zoning boundary line and provide uniform zoning for the property. (GPIN 14678196750000). Pastor Warren E. Singleton (Abounding Grace Assembly Application: Conditional Use Permit at 5040 Corpo- rate Woods Drive (GPIN 14678196750000). DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL Shurguard Application: Conditional Use Permit for miniwarehouses at 3201 Holland Road (GPIN 14950696840000). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE Destiny Life Center Application: Conditional Use Per- mit for a church at 4554 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Suite 201 (GPIN 14775644360000). All interested parties are invited to attend Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Copies of the proposed ordinances, resolutions and amendments are on file and may be examined in the Department of Planning. For information call 427.4621. 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 at 427-4305. (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf). The Planning Commission Agenda is available through the City's Internet Home Page at htto://www.vbgov.com/nianningcommission Beacon Jan. 29 & Feb. 5, 2006 14547920 4 r Supplemental Inormaton Zoninq History Street Closure # DATE IREQUEST I ACTION 1 05/27/01 Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Parking Lot GRANTED 05/28/02 Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Parking Lot GRANTED Public Agency Comments Public Works There are no public drainage structures in the area proposed for closure ATLANTIC 'ENTERPRI_SES Agenda Item #.19 Paae 5 2 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An ordinance extending the date for satisfying conditions in the matter of the closing, vacating and discontinuing of a portion of 29'/2 Street as shown on that certain plat entitled "EXHIBIT PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF 20' ALLEY TO BE CLOSED, BLOCK 71, VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, MAP NO. 3, M.B. 4, PT. 2, P. 266, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: An Ordinance extending the date for satisfying conditions in the matter of the application of Atlantic Enterprises, Inc., to close, vacate, and discontinue a portion of 29'h Street, beginning on the east side of Pacific Avenue and running 136.5 feet in an easterly direction. DISTRICT - BEACH ■ Considerations: On February 22, 2005, the City Council granted the request of Atlantic Enterprises, Inc. to close a portion of 29'h Street. The applicant owns the property on the north side of the alley, where a parking lot is located. The applicant intends to purchase the property on the south side of the alley adjacent to the closure. The applicant intends to combine the properties on the north and south sides and to ultimately construct a six story mixed -use structure, including conference facilities, timeshare units, a parking deck and street level retail stores. There were six conditions attached to the approval: 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 said policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. There is an existing public six-inch sanitary sewer line within the area proposed for closure. This line does not serve any customers. Public Utilities (at their expense) shall relocate this line if necessary and provide a new Atlantic Enterprises, Inc., 29 1/2 Street Page 2of2 sanitary sewer lateral at the intersection of Pacific Ave. and 29'/2 to serve the proposed Atlantic Enterprises development. If it is determined that the line should remain in place to serve the new development, a satisfactory easement for the line must be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach. Atlantic Enterprises shall pay applicable sanitary sewer connection fees. 4. A right-of-way dedication for traffic control equipment, satisfactory to the Department of Public Works, at the northwest corner of the property shall be provided on the final street closure plat. 5. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies. 6. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within one year of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered null and void. ■ Recommendations: Staff recommends that an extension of 90 days be granted. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Staff Review from 2005 Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department �A; City Manager: XA01D\REAL ESTATE\Street Closure\Atlantic Enterprises.CA9255\Atlantic Enterprises.ca9862.arfext.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE DATE FOR SATISFYING CONDITIONS IN THE MATTER OF THE CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING OF A PORTION OF 29 1/2 STREET AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "EXHIBIT PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF 20' ALLEY TO BE CLOSED, BLOCK 71, VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, MAP NO. 3, M.B. 4, PT. 2, P. 266, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" WHEREAS, on February 22, 2005, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach acted upon the application of Atlantic Enterprises, Inc. for the closure of portion of 29'/2 Street; WHEREAS, on February 22, 2005 the Council adopted an Ordinance to close the aforesaid street, subject to certain conditions being met on or before February 21, 2006; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2006, the applicants requested an extension of time to satisfy the conditions attached to the aforesaid street closure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the date for meeting conditions of closure as stated in the Ordinance adopted on February 22, 2005, upon application of Atlantic Enterprises, Inc., is extended to May 21, 2006. 28 GPINS: 2428-01-6618, 2428-01-5548 and 2428-01-6690 29 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 30 2006. CA-9862 X:\OID\REAL ESTATE\Street Closure\Atlantic Enterprises.CA9255\Atlantic Enterprises.ca9255.ORDext.doc Date: 02/08/06 R1 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: U;_ t4 o6 Planning De artment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: k" C' q ak&o 1/ City Attorney's Office ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES Agenda Item # 19 January 12, 2005 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. REQUEST: LOCATION: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SIZE: 77�g Haag am Location and General Information Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of 29 'h Street. 29 Y2 Street, beginning on the east side of Pacific Avenue and running 136.5 feet in an easterly direction. 6 - BEACH 2730 square feet ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES Agenda Item # 19 Page 1 SURROUNDING North: • Parking lot/ RT-2 Resort Tourist District LAND USE AND South: • Hotel f RT-2 Resort Tourist District ZONING: East: • Hotel f RT-1 Resort Tourist District West: . Bank f RT-3 Resort Tourist District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The alleyway is improved with pavement and utilities. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. AM Summary Of PrOposa The applicant is requesting closure of 136.5 feet of a 20 foot wide alleyway that runs between Pacific Avenue and Atlantic Avenue. The applicant owns the property on the north side of the alley, where a parking lot is located. The applicant intends to purchase the property on the south side of the alley adjacent to the closure. The applicant intends to combine the properties on the north and south sides and to ultimately construct a six story mixed -use structure, including conference facilities, timeshare units, a parking deck and street level retail stores. Major issues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staffs evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. • Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area. • Determination that there is no inconvenience to the general public associated with the abandonment of this right-of-way. ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES Agenda Item # 1.9- Page 2 d AV Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as the Resort Area. This area is generally bound by 42"d Street, the Atlantic Ocean, Rudee Inlet and Birdneck Road. The "Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan" and the "Creating An Old Beach District Center Plan" contain information and planning guidance with regard to creating an attractive, wholesome, family resort destination; establishing complementary resort activity centers; and, the need to ensure excellence and a quality image in all resort area development. Generally, this area is planned for resort uses including lodging, retail, entertainment, recreation, cultural, and other uses. ib.�i Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff's evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the `Major Issues' are as follows: (1) The closure will facilitate redevelopment of the property into the type of use that is encouraged and envisioned for the Oceanfront Area in the Comprehensive Plan. (2) This street closure will not result in a public inconvenience. The area of right-of- way proposed for closure is not used to serve any properties other than the applicants' property and there are no future plans for this right-of-way. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request. Conditions The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant 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. There is an existing public six-inch sanitary sewer line within the area proposed For closure. Relocation of this line shall be at the applicant's expense. If it is determined during further review by the Department of Public Utilities that the line must remain, a satisfactory easement for the line must be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach on the final street closure plat. 4. A right-of-way dedication for traffic control equipment, satisfactory to the Department of Public Works, at the northwest corner of the property shall be provided on the final street closure plat. 5. 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 private utilities for Virginia Natural Gas within the right-of- way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 6. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES Agenda Item #.19. _Pa e,4 I, Supplemental information Zoning History Street Closure # I DATE REQUEST I ACTION 1 05/27/01 Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Parking Lot GRANTED 05/28/02 Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Parking Lot GRANTED Public Agency Comments Public Works There are no public drainage structures in the area proposed for closure. ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES Agenda Item # 19 Page 5 Public Utilities Water: I There are no public water lines in the area proposed for closure. Sewer: There is a six inch sanitary sewer line in the area proposed for closure. Private Utility Comments Virginia Natural Gas has facilities within the area proposed for closure. ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES Agenda Item # 19 Page 6 Oft r g 10 r 22 0' ry ft 0 00 11 30th STREET (60' R/W) (M.B. 4 PT. 2 P. 266) 1 38' 11 50' 1 50' 1 PROPERTY OF ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES, INC. A VA. CORPORATION D. B. 4157 P. 1887 GPIN. 2428-01 —6618 10 9 8 Lo 136. 7 .2730 S.F. OF ALLEY TO BE CLOSED 20' ALLEY I PROPERTY OF I MADHU SAMTANI & SAPNA SAMTANI D.B. 4195 P. 262 GPIN:242B-01-5548 AND GPIN:2428-01-6690 136.50' 5 4 3 0101013�� 29th STREET 2 Exhibit 8 Survey of Area to be Closed NOIZV'JPIddV aufisori) 12BUD, z Ui M LU LU Q D U) O Q U) i 1 I- z LU 2 U1 Q U) w Cr O J U 4 n 3 r _ NOCt ci a3 .'"tI NJJ r C m2�N 1 NbN t Z Q C 4 O? L t7 �.-' O ". G ❑ C Q'--ym;yR N7 III 6 7+ O 4 m p V 4 v M o°a.r� ragaLpoNN m C ( i U Cti =� 2 >a'7 M. � L c°i�a�Tr ¢ ! ��pj DcscNSammN�, O �DQai { L� = i i ALOU NOmm CIf O �N � a°3 ��g E 5� Z Lri 21 °'corn c�oEx�.S1ZE6pU U O. - �o'A � � r u a, c m � D O � i22 ° o a J a S Hj 'M b ZO - y 4 7 W3ys� �r is b � � _ N ttii U) o zz E. c`aC t aT W O12 a f.1 o 6 O D , 7 .- G U o rs y w ° a _ IC U Cd Q SI G2 4 1 OCJ >. L _Ll w U ❑ N NOU.,V�I'IddV �IIlSO'I� larj"UIS Exhibit C Disclosure Statement ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES Agenda Item #_.1_9 Page..9. Item # 19 Atlantic Enterprises, Inc. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of 29'/Z Street, beginning on the east side of Pacific Avenue District 6 Beach January 12, 2005 William Din: Our last item on consent is Item # 19, Atlantic Enterprises, Inc. This is also a discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of 29'/z Street beginning on the east side of Pacific Avenue and running 136 feet in an easterly direction in the Beach District. There are six conditions associated with this item. Jeff Maynard: Thank you Mr. Vice Chairman. Ms. Wood and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Jeff Maynard, attorney for the applicant. We've reviewed and accept the conditions as proposed. Thanks. William Din: Thank you Mr. Maynard. Is there any objection to placing this item on consent? If not, Ms. Anderson would please comment on this also? Janice Anderson: Thank you. The application is proposing to close a 20-foot alleyway near the Oceanfront. The applicant owns one side of the property and is going to purchase on the other side of the street. Therefore, the closure would not affect anybody but his property that he owns. Actually, the future owner at the end of the block could access their property from the open part of the alley. He is just closing his portion between the property that he is going to purchase, and actually his plan is to consolidate these portions, both parcels across the street and the alley, and to build a multi -story mixed use facility. There are some utilities located in this 20 foot alleyway and the conditions are that the applicant, at his expense will either relocate those facilities or there can be an easement for the existing utilities for their continued use. With those conditions, we recommend approval. William Din: Thank you Ms. Anderson. I'd like to make a motion to approve following consent item that was placed on the consent agenda, Item #19, Atlantic Enterprises, Inc., a discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of 29'h Street in the Beach District with six conditions. Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a second? We have a second by Mr. Knight. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE Item #19 Atlantic Enterprises, Inc. Page 2 HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS ABSENT KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER ABSENT WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, Item #19 has been approved for consent. U U Q 30th STREET (60' R/W) (M.B. 4 PT. 2 P. 266) 20' 38' 50' 50' PROPERTY OF ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES, INC. A VA. CORPORATION Exhibit A D.B. 4157 P. 1887 GPIN: 2428-01-6618 0 10 9 8 7 O N 136 2730 S.F. OF ALLEY TO BE CLOSED 20' ALLEY PROPERTY OF I MADHU SAMTANI & SAPNA SAMTANI D.B. 4195 P. 262 GPIN:2428-01-5548 AND GPIN:2428-01-6690 L136.50' o of .5 1 4 1 3 1 2 _ BLOCK 71 29th STREET (60' R/W) (M.B. 4 PT. 2 P. 266) W. c EXHIBIT +gin. PLAT SHOWING � .0.0 4- PORTION OF 20' ALLEY TO BE CLOSED BLOCK 71 VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY MAP NO. 3 M.B. 4 PT. 2 P. 266: VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA SCALE:1"=40' AUGUST 17, 2004 GALLUP SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS; LTD. 323 FIRST COLONIAL ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23454 /-c-7\ego n, .J. TROUTMiA.N SANDERS LLB' A T T 0 R N E Y S A T l A W A LIMITED :IA51CITv Y-TNCRS I, 222 Central Palk Avenue Suite 2000 VIRGINIA eEACH, VIRGINIA 23462 www.trOulmansanders.ODrn TELEPHONE: 757.6E7T7500 FACSIMILE; 757-687-7510 Jeffrey A Maynard jolt, maynard l4troutmansanders.com February 8, 2006 Via Facsimile (385-1167) I..ucia G. Whitlow, Esquire Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office Annex 2412 North Landing Road, Building 20 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Direct Dial: 757-687.7522 Direct Fa;c 757.687-1520 Re: Request for Extension of Street Closure Approval; Atlantic Enterprises, Inc. Dear Ms. Whitlow: On behalf of my client, Atlantic Enterprises, Inc., I would like to request a ninety (90 ) clay extension of the referenced street closure approval. This request is made to allow time for the resubdivision plat to be submitted and approved by the City of Virginia Beach prior to the expiration of the approval. Please be advised that Bruce Gallup, of Gallup Engineering, has 1)repared a resubdivision plat and intends to submit it as soon as he is able to obtain my client's si-rnature. We should have consent letters from each of the various utility companies prior to the expiration of the original approval, but an extension will allow for any delays in that regard. Please let me know if you need additional information from me in order to process this request. Very truly yours, +rcMaynard cc: Dr. Stephen J. White 30,7915 A-r-l.-ANTA - HoNc; KoNC; - Lo.tnor: - NEW YORK - NORr-oi_r; - I2nl.LJ<;la IZl<-1i,40zvD - TYsoNs C 012N812 - V'Ir,CINIA r3rACr! - Wnsl-trNc ro a, r�_C�. Tal) 7.-24 i-+ r% • 1 - VIO AGA 010 PAo CUP - Renewal - Borrow Pit Expansion nermit C J !C` Sy7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Bonney G. Bright — five-year extension of an existing borrow pit operation MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Bonney G. Bright for Modification and Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit expansion approved by City Council on November 28, 2000. The property is located on the east side of Princess Anne Road, 2,172 feet south of the intersection with Pocahontas Club Road.(GPIN 23176213270000; 23177232590000; 23176125200000) DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE ■ Considerations: This item is for an additional five-year extension of the existing borrow pit operation. City Council approved the original conditional use permit on December 18, 1989, subject to 11 conditions. On November 28, 2000, City Council approved an expansion of the operation subject to 16 conditions. Condition #7 states that, "Renewal of the conditional use permit is required after a five year period." The Planning Department is not renewing this conditional use permit administratively because complaints have been received related to the operation of the facility. In addition, Condition #16 required the operator to install monitoring wells and this condition had not been met when renewal was considered. Since October 21 st, staff has received a report that the wells have been installed and that no saltwater intrusion problems are evident. Complaints related to truck traffic from residents of the area continue to be received. There was opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 6-5 to approve the request with the following conditions: 1. No excavation or restoration of the borrow pit expansion shall be allowed without first obtaining any necessary permits from the appropriate Federal, State and Local agencies, required as a result of the expansion of the existing borrow pit operation. In addition, the applicant shall obtain a Non -Metallic Bonney G. Bright Page 2of4 Mineral Mining General Permit from the Department of Environmental Quality for the proposed expansion. 2. No excavation or restoration of the borrow pit shall commence until such time that a site plan has been reviewed and approved by the Development Services Center. The site plan must include a specific street and highway contingency plan that addresses the repair and replacement of any damaged roadway surfaces associated with the borrow pit operation. The site plan shall also detail the truck -watering schedule currently utilized for the abatement of dust generated by this application. 3. The limits of excavation in the southeast corner of the site, as shown on the site plan dated April 20, 2000 by Gallup Surveyors and Engineers and on file in the Planning Department, must be modified to remove the cemetery site from the excavation area and provide at least a 100 foot buffer from the cemetery limits to the edge of the excavation area. The site plan submitted to the Development Services Center must show the cemetery site, new limits of excavation and permanent fencing to identify and protect the cemetery site. All other limits of excavation shown on the plan dated April 20, 2000 must be adhered to. 4. The site plan submitted to the Development Services Center must indicate the sequence of construction for maintaining 3:1 side slopes on the borrow pit, as shown in the "typical cross section" on the site plan dated April 20, 2000, within 60 days after excavation is complete. 5. The maximum depth of the proposed expansion shall not exceed an elevation of —32.0 feet from elevation 0.00. 6. No access to or from Pocahontas Club Road will be allowed for the borrow pit operation. 7. Renewal of the conditional use permit is required after a five-year period. 8. Operating hours shall be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. No Sunday operating hours shall be permitted. 9. No encroachments into existing easements will be allowed. Access to drainage easements must be provided by the applicant over all outfall systems within this site. 10. No encroachment into natural drainage channels will be allowed. 11. Dewatering of the pit will be allowed and the following are required: a. A dewatering settlement basin shall be constructed to capture sediment before discharge. b. A permit from the Virginia Water Control Board is required to discharge any water from dewatering into a state waterway. Bonney G. Bright Page 3 of 4 c. Pumps for dewatering shall operate only between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. No pumps shall operate on Sundays. d. The operator of the borrow pit shall be responsible for continuous water service for the private wells up to 1,000 feet and those within 2,500 feet if proved to be affected by this operation. 12. The existing buffer of pine trees along Princess Anne Road must remain undisturbed. 13. Undrained pockets and stagnant pools resulting from surface drainage shall be sprayed in accordance with requirements of the State Board of Health to eliminate breeding places for mosquitoes and other insects. 14.A double row of Loblolly and Virginia Pine trees, at least 2 —3 years old at planting, and an under story row of wax myrtle shrubs, is required to be planted along a three (3) foot high berm along the Pocahontas Club Road frontage for screening and buffering. 15.On an annual basis, the amount of excavated material removed from the pit shall be consistent with the amount reported to the "Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy for the year 2000. A copy of the 2000 year end report and all future quarterly reports shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator to ensure compliance with this condition. 16.Applicant shall, at his expense, establish monitoring wells, between two to four in number (to be determined by the Water Resources manager) at such locations as may be determined by the Water Resources Manager, for the purpose of monitoring any salt water intrusion which may occur as a result of the applicant's operation. Testing shall be performed at each such well a minimum of four times per year if deemed necessary by the Water Resources Manager. Results shall be provided to the Water Resources Manager. If, in the judgment of the Water Resources Manager, such results indicate that salt water intrusion is occurring to such extent that private drinking water wells are threatened with salt water intrusion, the applicant shall cease dewatering of the borrow pit at the cost of the borrow pit operator. 17. The maximum number of truck trips generated by the borrow pit shall be 75 per day. A truck trip shall be considered one round trip, in and out of the borrow pit. Truck trip records shall be submitted to the Planning Department every 60 days. 18.The operator shall install a left turn lane on Princess Anne Road into the borrow pit entrance. Additional right-of-way may need to be dedicated by the applicant to accommodate the turn lane. In addition, the entrance shall be paved and the pavement shall extend 50' back from the property line and then graveled an additional 50'. The entrance plan shall be reviewed and approved by Traffic Engineering. Bonney G. Bright Page 4 of 4 19.All trucks and equipment used in conjunction with the borrow pit operation must be stored, repaired and fueled on the borrow pit site or on property zoned for such use. Staff is instructed to allow the repair of trucks at the facility on Buzzard Neck Road for an additional five months. 20. For the first year following this approval, the applicant shall provide quarterly reports from the test wells to include nitrate readings. The reports shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review by the Water Resources Manager. Following the first year, frequency of the reports shall be determined by the Water Resources Manager. Required frequency shall not exceed four reports per year. 21.Approval is for a one-year period. If all conditions have been met, the conditional use permit may be extended an additional four years. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: Planning Department qJq BONNEY G. BRIGHT Agenda Item # 20 January 11, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Lasley On December 14, 2005, the Planning Commission deferred this request to allow the applicant to submit a revised site plan showing truck parking at the borrow pit site. As of January 3, 2006 staff has not received a revised site plan. Map L_Z4 .o 'I AG-1%. �,, . AG AG s/ AG-1 AG-1 AGA CUP - Renewal - Borrow Pit Expansion permit REQUEST: This item is for an additional five-year extension of the existing borrow pit operation. City Council approved the original conditional use permit on December 18, 1989, subject to 11 conditions. On November 28, 2000, City Council approved an expansion of the operation subject to 16 conditions. Condition #7 states that, "Renewal of the conditional use permit is required after a five year period." The Planning Department is not renewing this conditional use permit administratively because complaints have been received related to the operation of the facility. In addition, Condition #16 required the operator to install monitoring wells and this condition had not been met when renewal was considered. Since October 215t, staff has received a report that the wells have been installed and that no saltwater intrusion problems are evident. Complaints related to truck traffic from residents of the area continue to be received. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on the east side of Princess Anne Road, 2,172 feet south of the intersection with Pocahontas Club Road. GPIN: 23176213270000; 23177232590000; 23176125200000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 7 — Princess Anne 162 acres with a total borrow pit area of 69.4 acres. SUMMARY OF REQUEST This conditional use permit for a borrow pit was not renewed administratively by the Planning Department because complaints were received. The complaints were primarily related to the truck traffic associated with the borrow pit. Neighbors claim that the owner, Mr. Bright, is keeping a fleet of trucks related to the borrow pit on his agricultural farm at 5513 Buzzard Neck Road. Neighbors on Buzzard Neck Road complained about noise from the trucks and safety issues. They claimed that the trucks were being stored, fueled and repaired on the farm and returning to the farm several times a day. The Zoning Inspector made several visits to the site and found the claims to be substantiated. The Zoning Inspector notified Mr. Bright that parking, repairing and fueling borrow, pit BONNEY G. BRIGHT Agenda Item #,20, Page 1 dump trucks on the farm property was a zoning violation in a letter dated August 1, 2005 (letter is attached). Mr. Bright's attorney responded in writing on August 30th explaining why he felt his client was in compliance (letter is attached). Complaints persisted and the Inspector continued to monitor the site. On October 5, 2005, for example, the Inspector noted that 21dump trucks headed south on Princess Anne Road from the farm between 6:13 a.m. and 8:40 a.m. On October 21st, the Zoning Administrator officially notified Mr. Bright that the conditional use permit would not be renewed administratively (letter is attached) and scheduled the public hearing for December 14th. It remains the Zoning Administrator's conclusion that storing, fueling and repairing trucks and equipment from the commercial borrow pit on the farm property is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Although the letter from the Zoning Administrator notes that condition #16, regarding monitoring wells, had not been met; the applicant has since provided evidence that the wells have been installed. The report on water condition is currently being reviewed by Public Utilities. Since adjacent property notices have been sent out, Planning has received several other complaints about the borrow pit operation including the amount of truck traffic on Princess Anne Road. The 2000 application indicated that there would be an average of 25 — 30 truck trips per day, however, there is no condition limiting the number of truck trips to and from the borrow pit. The 2000 application also indicated that excavation would not be completed until 2015. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The subject property is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District. There is an existing borrow pit and agricultural operation on the subject site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Agricultural and residential uses/ AG-1 and AG-2 zoning USE AND ZONING: South: . Agricultural and residential uses/ AG-1 and AG-2 zoning East: . Agricultural and residential uses/ AG-1 and AG-2 zoning West: • Agricultural and residential uses. A campground exists to the southwest across Princess Anne Road / AG-1 and AG-2 zoning NATURAL RESOURCE AND The property is located on the narrowest portion of the Pungo Ridge. CULTURAL FEATURES: The approximate distance from the pit to the brackish waters of Back Bay and the North Landing River is approximately 3,000 to 5,000 feet. Typical land surface elevations are approximately eight feet above mean sea level and the borrow pit is approximately 38 feet deep. The 2000 staff report on the borrow pit expansion indicated that it is extremely likely that the cone of influence from the de -watering operation associated with the borrow pit will extend into Back Bay and the North Landing River. This means that brackish waters from Back Bay and the North Landing River can be drawn into the water table aquifer. The normal flow of groundwater is from the water table to Back Bay and the North Landing River. This operation has a high probability of reversing that flow and causing saltwater intrusion because of its proximity to brackish waters. Saltwater intrusion is generally irreversible, it cannot be mitigated and it could result in rendering water supply wells undrinkable. BONN;EY G. BRIGHT Agenda Item # 20 ; Page 2 AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Princess Anne Road is currently a two lane undivided rural road at this location. This road is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a future 90-foot right-of-way with a bikeway. There are currently no Capital Improvement Projects scheduled for this section of Princess Anne Road. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Princess Anne 3,621 ADT 95 ADT as conditioned Road at Pungo with a maximum of 75 Ferry Road truck trips per day. Average Daily Trips Note: In 2000, the 24- hour traffic volume at Princess Anne Road and Pungo Ferry Road was 2,379 ADT. WATER and SEWER: Public water and sewer services are not available in this area of the City. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN rural area. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this borrow pit renewal be extended for an additional one year period, subject to the 16 conditions attached to the 2000 approval plus six additional conditions. The first new condition, number 17, addresses the number of truck trips generated by the borrow pit per day. When approved in 2000, the number of truck trips was estimated at 25 — 30 per day. Currently, as many as 75 trips per day can occur and standards call for entrance improvements, addressed by condition # 18, including a left turn lane off Princess Anne Road. Traffic Engineering concludes that the amount of traffic from the south does not generate the need for a right turn lane. Condition #19 prohibits trucks and equipment used routinely at the borrow pit from being kept on the farm, which is not zoned for the bulk storage of trucks, truck repair or truck fueling. Proposed conditions #20 and #21 address concerns with salt water intrusion. Condition #22 addresses future renewals. At the end of one year, the operation will be reviewed. If all conditions have been met, an additional four-year approval can be granted administratively. These issues were not addressed in 2000 by conditions and appear BONNEY G. BRIGHT Agenda Item # 20 Page 3 to be causing most complaints about the borrow pit. CONDITIONS The following 16 conditions from the 2000 conditional use permit shall remain in effect: 1. No excavation or restoration of the borrow pit expansion shall be allowed without first obtaining any necessary permits from the appropriate Federal, State and Local agencies, required as a result of the expansion of the existing borrow pit operation. In addition, the applicant shall obtain a Non -Metallic Mineral Mining General Permit from the Department of Environmental Quality for the proposed expansion. 2. No excavation or restoration of the borrow pit shall commence until such time that a site plan has been reviewed and approved by the Development Services Center. The site plan must include a specific street and highway contingency plan that addresses the repair and replacement of any damaged roadway surfaces associated with the borrow pit operation. The site plan shall also detail the truck - watering schedule currently utilized for the abatement of dust generated by this application. 3. The limits of excavation in the southeast corner of the site, as shown on the site plan dated April 20, 2000 by Gallup Surveyors and Engineers and on file in the Planning Department, must be modified to remove the cemetery site from the excavation area and provide at least a 100 foot buffer from the cemetery limits to the edge of the excavation area. The site plan submitted to the Development Services Center must show the cemetery site, new limits of excavation and permanent fencing to identify and protect the cemetery site. All other limits of excavation shown on the plan dated April 20, 2000 must be adhered to. 4. The site plan submitted to the Development Services Center must indicate the sequence of construction for maintaining 3:1 side slopes on the borrow pit, as shown in the "typical cross section" on the site plan dated April 20, 2000, within 60 days after excavation is complete. 5. The maximum depth of the proposed expansion shall not exceed an elevation of —38.0 feet from elevation 0.00. 6. No access to or from Pocahontas Club Road will be allowed for the borrow pit operation. 7. Renewal of the conditional use permit is required after a five-year period. 8. Operating hours shall be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. No Sunday operating hours shall be permitted. 9. No encroachments into existing easements will be allowed. Access to drainage easements must be provided by the applicant over all outfall systems within this site. 10. No encroachment into natural drainage channels will be allowed. 11. Dewatering of the pit will be allowed and the following are required: a. A dewatering settlement basin shall be constructed to capture sediment before discharge. b. A permit from the Virginia Water Control Board is required to discharge any water from dewatering into a state waterway. c. Pumps for dewatering shall operate only between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. No pumps shall operate on Sundays. BONNEY G. BRIGHT Agenda Item # 20 Page 4 d. The operator of the borrow pit shall be responsible for continuous water service for the private wells up to 1,000 feet and those within 2,500 feet if proved to be affected by this operation. 12. The existing buffer of pine trees along Princess Anne Road must remain undisturbed. 13. Undrained pockets and stagnant pools resulting from surface drainage shall be sprayed in accordance with requirements of the State Board of Health to eliminate breeding places for mosquitoes and other insects. 14. A double row of Loblolly and Virginia Pine trees, at least 2 —3 years old at planting, and an under story row of wax myrtle shrubs, is required to be planted along a three (3) foot high berm along the Pocahontas Club Road frontage for screening and buffering. 15. On an annual basis, the amount of excavated material removed from the pit shall be consistent with the amount reported to the "Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy for the year 2000. A copy of the 2000 year end report and all future quarterly reports shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator to ensure compliance with this condition. 16. Applicant shall, at his expense, establish monitoring wells, between two to four in number (to be determined by the Water Resources manager) at such locations as may be determined by the Water Resources Manager, for the purpose of monitoring any salt water intrusion which may occur as a result of the applicant's operation. Testing shall be performed at each such well a minimum of four times per year if deemed necessary by the Water Resources Manager. Results shall be provided to the Water Resources Manager. If, in the judgment of the Water Resources Manager, such results indicate that salt water intrusion is occurring to such extent that private drinking water wells are threatened with salt water intrusion, the applicant shall cease dewatering of the borrow pit at the cost of the borrow pit operator. The following six additional conditions are also recommended: 17. The maximum number of truck trips generated by the borrow pit shall be 75 per day. A truck trip shall be considered one round trip, in and out of the borrow pit. 18. The operator shall install a left turn lane on Princess Anne Road into the borrow pit entrance. Additional right-of-way may need to be dedicated by the applicant to accommodate the turn lane. In addition, the entrance shall be paved and the pavement shall extend 50' back from the property line and then graveled an additional 50'. The entrance plan shall be reviewed and approved by Traffic Engineering. 19. All trucks and equipment used in conjunction with the borrow pit operation must be stored, repaired and fueled on the borrow pit site or on property zoned for such use. 20. For the first year following this approval, the applicant shall provide quarterly reports from the test wells to include nitrate readings. The reports shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review by the Water Resources Manager. Following the first year, frequency of the reports shall be determined by the Water Resources Manager. Required frequency shall not exceed four reports per year. 21. Condition #5 of the 2000 approval, allowing a depth of —38', is deleted. Maximum depth of the borrow pit shall be —32 feet. 22. Approval is for a one-year period. If all conditions have been met at the end of the one-year, the BONNEY G. BRIGHT Agenda Item #_-20 Page, 5 conditional use permit may be extended an additional four years. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. 1 12/18/89 Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit 2 11 /28/2000 Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of a borrow pit 3 10/29/91 Commercial Kennel 4 2/13/89 Change to a Nonconforming Use 5 11/8/2005 Conditional Use Permit for a campground ZONING HISTORY BONNEY G. BRIGHT Agenda Item # 20 Page 9 APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4 r CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT :"�'«.....� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: Bonney Bright List All Current Property Owners. Bonney Bright PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) N/A If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list ifnecessary) N/A Q Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization IjF the applicant Is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) if the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) 0 Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: 1 certify that the information containe rein is true and accurate. Si re Bonney Bright Print Name r vn s�va i BONNEY G. BRIGHT Agenda Item # 20 Page 10 GEPARTMENT OF PIAISYING ZONING AOAILVISTRATION ONtSION ps7l427.e074 FAX (757)C7!-4&14 August.1, 2005 Bonney G. Bright 5513 Buzzard Neck Road Virginia Beach, VA 23457 Re: Storage of Commercial Dump Trucks at 5513 Buzzard Neck Road Virginia Beach, VA Dear Mr. Bright: Current City records indicate you as the owner of the above referenced property. Inspection of the property indicates a large number of dump trucks being parked, repaired, and fueled on the property. This is not an agricultural use allowed in the property. Section 401 (b)2 of the City Zoning Ordinance prohibits a business from operating at the above location where there is any change in the outside appearance of the building or any visible or audible evidence from outside the building lot either permanently or intermittently, of the conduct of such business. You have 30 days after receipt of this letter to correct the violation by removing the trucks from the property or legal action as allowed by law will be taken to correct the situation. In accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia, you have the right to appeal this decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals within 30 days from the date of this letter. If you do not appeal, this decision shall be final and unappealable. An appeal may be taken by filing with the Zoning Administrator a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at 426-5068 Sincerely, Bill Mellon Zoning Inspector C: File C:lfile/buzzard neck5513.05 EM SYKES, BOURDON UM ERN & LWY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK - BUILDING ONE JON M_ AMERN 281JUDEPENDEKCE BOULEVARD SCOTT N. ALPERIN FIFTH FLOOR R. EDWARD BOURDON. JR. VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462.2989 JAMES T. CROMWELL L. STEVEN EM04ERT TELEPHONE: 757-4DAVID S. HOLLAND 56.5445 KIRK B. LEVY FACSFMICE: 757-456-5445 August 30, 2005 JENNIFER O. ORAM-SMITH HOWARD R. SYKES. JR, Via Hand Delivery Bill Mellon, Zoning Inspector Department of Planning Zoning Division Building 2, Room 100 Municipal Center Virginia. Beach, Virginia 23456-9039 Re: Bonney G. Bright and Bonney Bright Farms 5513 Buzzard Neck Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia Dear Mr. Mellon: I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Bonney G. Bright in reply to your letter of August 1, 2005. Please be advised that my client has had a handful of trucks that he did not own which were parked on his farm removed from his property.. As of this date, all of the remaining vehicles, trucks and equipment belong to Mr. Bright and Bonney Bright Farms. All of the trucks and machinery located on his farm are utilized in his very significant farming operation. Some of his vehicles are' used for multiple purposes associated with his farming operation. As a result of the foregoing, Mr. Bright is in compliance with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance with respect to his longstanding and ongoing agricultural operation. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the contents of this letter do not hesitate to contact me_ Sincerely, R. Edward Bourdon, Jr. REBjr/arhm cc: Bonney G. Bright, Bonney Bright Farms Karen Lasky, Zoning Administrator Jack Whitney, Director, Department of Agriculture ZONING/BRIGHT/ MELLON I City of Virgiia Beach DEPAMMENTOF MANNIM P571C'4621 FAX (757) 426wSW October 21, 2005 Mr. Bonney G. Bright Bonney Bright Farms 5513 Buzzard Neck Road Virginia Beach, VA 23457 vBgov.com MUNIDIPALCENTER SUILDING2, ROOM 11S 2405 COURTHOUSE DRIVE %4RONIABEACKVIAGWIA 23MG4040 RE: Conditional Use Permit for a. Borrow Pit Expansion on the East Side of Princess Anne Road, 2172 feet South of the Intersection with Pocahontas Club Road, 162 Acres, Approved by City Council on November 28, 2000. Dear Mr. Bright: As you may know, the above referenced conditional use permit for your borrow pit expires on November 28, 2005. 1 am writing to inform you that the Planning Department will not be renewing your conditional use permit administratively for the following reasons: Condition #16 attached by City Council to the approval, requires you to install monitoring wells and provide the City with test results pertaining to salt water intrusion at least Once per year or, at a maximum, four times per year if required by the City's Water Resources Manager. Your attorney Edward Bourdon informed me that these test wells have been recently installed, however, I have received no water reports or written confirmation that the wells were installed. 2. The City continues to receive complaints about trucks related to the borrow pit business being kept at your farm on Buzzard Neck Road. Our Zoning Inspector has observed the truck traffic and we must conclude that the complaints have validity. We recognize your position BONNEY G. BRIGHT Agenda Item # 20 Page.13 that these trucks are used for farm related activity, however, it also appears that a significant amount of the traffic is related to the borrow pit business. We conclude that this issue should be discussed in a public hearing forum. This will give all parties the opportunity to express their position and concerns. We are placing your renewal on the December 14, 2005 Planning Commission meeting for a public hearing. The public hearing begins at 12:00 noon. Following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, the renewal will be heard by the City Council the following month. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns at 563-1264. Sincerely, Karen l_asley Zoning Administrator Cc: Kay Wilson Bob Scott Barbara Duke✓ Bill Mellon Edward Bourdon BONNEY`G. BRIGHT Agenda Item #; 20 Page 14 Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Modification and Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for a Borrow pit approved by City Council on November 28, 2000 East side of Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne January 11, 2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: The next agenda item Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #20 Bonney G. Bright. It is for a Modification and Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit expansion approved by City Council on November 28, 2000. The property is located on the east side of Princess Anne Road, 2,172 feet south of the intersection with Pocahontas Club Road with 20 conditions. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon is earning his pay today. Eddie Bourdon: Before you start the clock, I've got the letters of support that you all received this morning. I don't think you need another set of those. You have already seen those. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney. Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, I am truly honored and consider myself privileged to stand before you this afternoon representing one of the pillars of the agricultural industry in our City. Mr. Bonney Bright, like a handful of other significant agricultural business owners in southern Virginia Beach has lived and farmed in southern Virginia Beach his entire life. The Bonney Bright farms agricultural business utilizes over 3,500 acres of land in southern Virginia Beach and northeast Currituck County, North Carolina. All of the more than 3,500 acres of land that they operate upon is zoned agriculture. And Bonney has never sought a Conditional Use Permit for alternative rural residential development. Bonney has been honored as the Man of the Year in Agriculture for the City of Virginia Beach. Bonney has received the Planning Commission's award for the City of Virginia Beach's Agricultural Operation in 1996. Bonney has served for many years on the City's Agricultural Advisory Board. Bonney is a significant contributor to the 4-H Program and to many other community organizations in Virginia Beach and specifically in southern Virginia Beach. Bonney's agricultural business employees and provides a livelihood to more than 50 individuals. His annual payroll approaches two million dollars. In addition, Bonney buys almost all of his parts, equipment, services, and fuel from Virginia Beach businesses. Last year, Mr. Bright spent close one and a quarter of a million dollars on parts, equipment, services, and fuel in the City of Virginia Beach. Bonney Bright farms, owns and operates 141 pieces of agricultural equipment including 25 dump trucks. Up until now, most of Bonney's agricultural equipment has been stored, serviced, and maintained at his home place on Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 2 Buzzard Neck Road just west of downtown Creeds. Like other large agricultural business operations, Bonney has stored, serviced, and maintained, and fueled all of his equipment at his home place where he has a significant investment in infrastructure. Most individuals who have managed to survive in agriculture will attest that diversification and flexibility are essential. Hard work and a little luck are mandatory. Mining sand rather than building houses represents Bonney's diversification. In the early 1970s, Mr. Telford Williams began mining a little sand from the site that is now commonly referred to as the Bonney Bright Borrow Pit. Bonney purchased Mr. Williams' land in 1975 and Mr. Bright now owns 500 acres of contiguous land that surrounds and encompasses the area that is the excavation area, which is 69 acres of this borrow pit. Going on 17 years ago, in 1979 Virginia Beach City Council approved a Use Permit for a 231/z-acre excavation site for Mr. Bright subject to eleven conditions. In November 2000, City Council approved an application to expand and enlarge the excavation area by 45 acres to a total of 69 acres of excavation. Subject to 16 conditions, one of which was renewal of the Conditional Use Permit required for five years and that is a common condition in all borrow pit applications. The original 1989 Use Permit and the 2000 Use Permit modification both contained a condition that limits excavation to 38 feet in depth. In the year 2000, there was some concern expressed by a handful of folks who opposed the request to expand the excavation area. They were concerned about the potential for drinking wells being affected or for saltwater intrusion to take place. We had three experts confirm that this would not be a problem given the 38-foot excavation limitation that had been in place since 1989. And, the fact that Bonney does not pump the water away from the site but recharges the agriculture by having the water circulating and remain on site. I draw your attention to Condition #5 and #11 in the 2000 approval that deals with the regeneration, recharging and the warranty of people's wells against failure. In seventeen years of operation no wells have failed or been effected including Mrs. William's well, which is right next to the pit and is only a 35 foot deep well. No saltwater intrusion has taken place. The City had a ground water study done by Malcolm Purney in the year 2001, which essentially agreed with our experts but assessed that there might be some risk if we excavated significant amounts below 32 feet in depth. Well, Mr. Bright has not excavated below 32 feet in depth. Has not executed what was permitted at 38 feet and in fact, we are willing to agree to modifying Condition #5 to limit the excavation to 32 feet in depth. There is no sand worth retrieving below 32 feet in depth, which essentially removes that issue from the table in terms of there being any risk of salt water intrusion. But the conditions that are recommended by staff are all acceptable. We're not asking that they be changed but to make sure that everyone understands that is really at this point a red herring. I also want to point out that Mr. Bright's sand is sold almost exclusively to locations and people developing and doing other things needing sand in Virginia Beach. Over 90 percent of the sand that he delivered in the last 3 to 4 years has been to locations in Virginia Beach. The conditions that staff has recommended to you with this extension we are in agreement with but with one caveat and I want to take a minute to talk about that. Moving these vehicles from the home place where they have been all these years does create some problems. One is that these 25 large vehicles have to have their brakes inspected on a daily basis. That can be Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 3 done at the site where we will store them at in the pit but they cannot be repaired there. And that is going to present some issues with regard to traffic and traffic on Princess Anne Road. But, we do believe that allowing the vehicles to repaired at his home place where all of the other 126 vehicles and equipment are stored and repaired simply makes sense. We have a disagreement with the staff as to whether these agricultural zoned properties where the Use is permitted in agriculture and an agriculture operator who owns them that can't do that as an accessory use on his property but we do have that disagreement. We're trying not to be disagreeable in trying to find common ground here. I want to mention also that Mr. Bright has an exemplary safety record. These trucks that he operates go over 1'/2 million miles a year. The only accidents that have ever occurred involving a Bonney Bright owned truck were a rear end collision where a car hit one of our trucks. The car driver being at fault and no one having been injured, and a truck only incident where a truck ran into a ditch. There was no other vehicle involved and no one injured, again, over a 1'/2 million miles a year. Again, we are willing to accept the conditions that have been laid out by the staff. However, we do think it is imposing a burden and we really aren't convinced that it is right to suggest that he cannot repair his vehicles at his shop on his farm. Under Section 227 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance there are factors that are listed that you should consider involving approving borrow pits. If you take a look at those one is the affect of the proposed pit on ground water supply and drainage. We covered that. History shows that is not an issue or problem and to a degree that might have even been thought of a problem limiting the excavation to 32 feet eliminates that in its entirety. The cap of the Yorktown aquafer is conservatively at 32 feet and other experts will argue that it is even less. It is down in the 40 to 45 foot range. The effective use of city streets in the area including traffic safety, again, my clients record is impeccable when it comes to safety record. The realty is sand is needed in Virginia Beach is either coming here or coming from other locations in the southern part of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake and in northeastern North Carolina on the exact same roads. We also have buffers in place, berms in place, trees in place. We're more than two football fields away from the closest home on Pocahontas and the people who are next to us on Princess Anne have no objection to our continued operation. I'll be happy to answer any questions that any of you may have. I appreciate your attention. We're here to try to resolve the problems that there are. Barry Knight: Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Joseph Strange: Our first speaker speaking in support is Richard Hancock. Barry Knight: Hello Richard. Welcome. Please state your name. Richard Hancock: Richard Hancock. I live on Buzzard Neck Road. My comments address the communication on November 10, 2005 written to Councilman Reeve. I believe you all received a copy. In this regard, Councilman and Mr. Knight met with a Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 4 couple of residents on Buzzard Neck Road along with some non-residents. I want to know about the other residents that we not count. Mr. Knight, I think you should have abstained because of your business relationship with Bonney. Otherwise, I think there is a question of ethnics involved. The issue is safety in that letter. The neighbors have been jogging that road for 20 years. No problems. I'm speaking of Buzzard Neck Road. Two ladies walk almost daily. No problem. Me, I travel in and out of that road more than any other resident on that road. No problem. The previous owner of the Culpepper house lived in that house for 13 years. No problem. No vibrations. Is safety the real issue to a man who takes a lawnmower up and down Buzzard Neck Road with a small child in his lap, no helmet, no seatbelt but is unable to hear approaching traffic. Several times I have come up behind Mr. Culpepper in my truck and have had to wait for him to turn and visually acknowledge me before I could pass. And the issue of maintaining the rural integrity. To me, sand, dirt, topsoil are commodities like potatoes. You dig, you load, and you haul it to the market. A perfect fit for rural agricultural. The farmer who does not diversify in today's economy is not going to be in the markets. How can someone in the real estate business preserve the rural integrity? They buy, sell, subdivide, sell, buy more traffic, more noise, more infrastructure costs. As far as the issue of noise in this regard, I live at the end of Buzzard Neck Road on the water. There are a lot of boats at all times, day and night. Noisy? Yes. Wake me up? Yes. But it is the nature of the environment that I chose to live in. Now the people who are against him on Buzzard Neck Road knew the nature of that environment when they moved there. As far as the issue of zoning rules to me should be practical and appropriate for the culture of the area. My father practiced medicine over there for over 40 years. The majority of that time he was the only doctor available at that hour. And you know what, his office practice was never zoned as a medical building. Would you have thrown him out? Would you have deprived him of that service? It is the principal of it. Other tractors farm Bonney Bright farms are not a teacup full of jobs out there. The last point that I wanted to make is how can you in good conscience jeopardize a number of people's livelihoods? Another word that was mentioned I think was nuisance. If something is really a nuisance, you avoid it at all cost. You might ask the people that live on Buzzard Neck Road who are against this where they got the dirt and rock in their driveway. If you're really against something why do you support him? Thank you very much. Barry Knight: Any questions for Mr. Hancock? Mr. Hancock, just a point of clarity. Richard Hancock: Yes sir. Barry Knight: Mr. Bright and I were in the hog business from 1984 — 1992 and we had a wonderful relationship. We were friends then and we're friends today. As far as the meetings that I had with some of the residents on Buzzard Neck Road, I afforded them the opportunity to meet with me just as I afforded Mr. Bright the opportunity to meet with him. I have not formed a decision here today. Richard Hancock: 1 didn't say you had. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 5 Barry Knight: I understand it Richard Hancock: I just felt like all the residents should be consulted. That was my point. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Hancock. Joseph Strange: The next person speaking in support is Marvin Rollins. Barry Knight: Welcome Marvin. Marvin Rollins: Thanks Barry. Barry Knight: Please state your name. Marvin Rollins: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Marvin Rollins. I live at 1521 Mill Landing Road, which is at Back Bay. I am the operator and owner of a construction company that started with my father in 1946. We are Class A in Virginia, unlimited in the State of North Carolina. I've had the privilege to know the Bright family for a long time. I've been married to Bruce and Bonney Bright's sister for 41 years. To us, as older members of this family, I sure regret being here today and the younger members will soon regret too. Anyone that is involved as I am in the construction business that is used to proctor tests, compression test, special inspection reports, etc., know the necessity of good quality material that comes out of the ground. And this pit whether it is my brother -in-laws, or it could be any body, does have quality material that consistently meets the requirements so that the construction industry can be carried forward. All materials, as engineers and builders know, do not meet that. There are three points that I would like to make and that being one of them. Another one is that any time the construction industry comes to be there is always conflict. Not necessarily a knock down, drag out conflict but a verbal commitment or I don't like this or I don't like that. The human race certainly does like conveniences. And it does not like inconveniences. And unfortunately with the construction industry hauling with trucks, cement trucks, material trucks whatever it may be, there are inconveniences. Most of the time that there are inconveniences and the squeaky wheels start to squeak louder and louder. And, when the project is finished, a lot of times and I think people in the construction industry that have been there for many years that usually the person that makes the most racket or is the first one there to open the doors when the business is open, and we don't live in a utopia and we never will. I hope that this business can go forward and I hope you people understand that it is a necessity for the City of Virginia Beach, and it certainly creates much more livelihood and much better things than there is negativity to it. Thank you all very much. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Rollins? Thank you Marvin. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 6 Joseph Strange: Is Barbara Humphries here? Are you speaking in support or opposition. Barbara Humphries: A little bit of both. Joseph Strange: Okay. You're next. Barbara Humphries. Barry Knight: Welcome Ms. Humphries. State your name. Barbara Humphries: Thank you. New Chairman Knight and ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, my name is Barbara Halstead Humphries. I'm here speaking today on behalf of my father Robert Halstead and his residence is at 6364 Pocahontas Club Road, which is located adjacent to the Bright mine. I'm also speaking on behalf of my husband and myself. We live about a mile south of the pit at 115 Martin Lane, Knotts Island. The address is Knotts Island but we don't actually live on the island. We support the additional conditions that have been proposed by the Planning Department to manage the traffic impacts of the Bright mine on State Route 615, which is Princess Anne Road. We also support the extension of the Conditional Use Permit for a one-year period only. However, any future extensions should be made on a year -by -year basis because of past and continuing violations of the 16 conditions from the 2000 Conditional Use Permit. The Bright mine failed to comply with Condition #16 requiring installation of ground water monitoring wells until sometime in the late 2005. I believe it was somewhere between August and October. The Bright mine discharges deep water fluent into ditches and canals that feed into Back Bay, which may violate Condition #11. The Bright mine is violating Condition #14 by failing to plant loblolly and Virginia pine trees and wax myrtle shrubs on the berm along Pocahontas Club Road. We are very concerned about the combined impacts of the existing sand mine in Virginia Beach, and the new mine that Bonney G. Bright proposes to develop just south of the existing site in Currituck County, North Carolina. We are asking the Virginia Beach Planning Commission to oppose the new Bright sand mine in Currituck, and until such time as the Bright mine in Virginia Beach seizes to operate. Our community can barely manage the impacts of one sand mine at a time. Continue operation of the existing mine plus a new mine would be in tolerable. Thank you very much for your time. Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Humphries. Are there any questions? Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Kendall Smith. Barry Knight: Mr. Smith, you didn't check down here whether or not you support or oppose. Kendall Smith: I guess I would be opposed based on one concern that we have. Barry Knight: If you want to wait a minute, we'll finish with the ones that are for it. We'll get you in a minute. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 7 Joseph Strange: The last speaker that we have in support is Don Horsley. Barry Knight: Mr. Horsley, you couldn't get enough of us could you? Welcome back Don. Donald Horsley: Thank you sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, last month we deferred this application. Ed Weeden: Please state your name for the record. Donald Horsley: Don Horsley, 3169 Land of Promise Road. Last month we deferred this application assuming that we were going to come back with an expansion to allow for the removal of these trucks. I understand that through some negotiations that didn't work out. So we're coming back basically the same request that we had last month. We did use that time to work out a feasible situation to get the trucks off of Buzzard Neck Road because that appears to be what is serviced in the last few months to be the main conflict with Mr. Bright's operation. Now we have a problem with the service of the vehicles on Buzzard Neck Road because they can't use Buzzard Neck Road. We can get the trucks to the pit but we can't work on the trucks. So, we realize this a violation of the current zoning ordinance that we've got. We also realize that is what commissions and councils are for to look at situations like this and we've done this over the 16 years that I sat in your seat. We looked at many of these situations and various other applications. What I'm asking from you today is that Mr. Bright willingly said that he will move his trucks. I don't know what number the condition is but he can't come back and work and service his trucks. I ask you to give him a little bit of leeway on that portion of the conditions. If any of you have ever worked with mechanics or whatever, you know they are not going to go down to a sand pit and work on trucks. I mean it is hard enough to get mechanics to work in nice facilities much less laying on the ground in cold wet weather. So we ask you to give some leeway to that condition to allow Mr. Bright to be able to come back and service his vehicles in a sensible manner. I see the light Ed. And also, I ask that you to recommend to the Agricultural Advisory Commission that they look at this ordinance to see if some type of minor tweaking needs to be done if we don't do anything but define what an agricultural vehicle is. And, then it will make it a whole lot easier for our Zoning Administrators to make rulings on these things. So that is what I'm asking you today, is to allow a little leniency and refer this matter of the agricultural vehicles back to the Agricultural Advisory Commission. You've got a new group over there. They're looking for things to do right now so give them a job and let them work on this. I think if we could just get a new definition for what an agricultural vehicle is or either have a printed definition of what an agricultural vehicle is. So, that is basically what I've got to say. I would have said it last month if we would of heard this issue. Thank you very much. r-- Barry Knight: Thank you Don. Ms. Wood would you like to ask a question? Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 8 Dorothy Wood: We miss you sir. One thing. This morning someone told us, Mr. Scott that the truck brakes have to be done every day or checked every day? Donald Horsley: I know they check periodically. I don't know if it is everyday or not. I know they're checked periodically. Mr. Bright has to make sure and it is a little different from regular farm vehicles. He has to make sure that he is up to DOT Standards so it is more inspections that are done to these dump trucks then his regular farm equipment. So, I'm not sure that it is every day but I'm sure its every two or three days anyway. Dorothy Wood: I would like to see some compromise be worked but if they had to go everyday or every two days, it would be pretty much like it is now Don. Donald Horsley: I'm guessing that Mr. Bright and you could ask him if you like to but I'm guessing that Mr. Bright would probably agree to that each truck possible two times a week. Dorothy Wood: It has to be that often to be serviced? Donald Horlsey: I would think so. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Donald Horsley: That would be my guess. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Horsley? Ron. Ronald Ripley: Don, have they had a period of time to operate or maybe some modification of operating, give them time for the Agricultural Advisory Commission to meet and try to address it, do you think that would fit together? I'm trying to get bits and pieces of this thing. There is an expansion piece to the possible to the property in the future. The operation will continue for a little while. Am I not correct in that? Donald Horsley: I don't know the length of time that operation is going to continue but it is going to continue for a while. Yes. But also, the sand that Mr. Bright has on his pit is coming to an end very drastically because he couldn't get the depth that he originally thought he was going to get. So, the duration there may not be as long as a lot of people think. But so far as the Agricultural Advisory Commission they meet on a quarterly basis. I would think this would be something that they could look at as well and Ms. Lasley, Mr. Macali, and Mr. Whitney could help them out. Ronald Ripley: Something like five months. Donald Horsley: I'm sure it could be done in that length of time. There next general meeting is in April. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 9 Barry Knight: Any other questions for Mr. Horsley. Thank you Don. Donald Horsley: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon is going to answer my question. Eddie Bourdon: I think it would help to clarify. The brakes have to be inspected every day but that can be done at the parking facility at the pit but they have to be adjusted and that happens maybe once or twice and that depends on miles. The adjustment of the brakes is what requires a sheltered environment and you have to lift the truck up. The brake adjustments, which would happen once or twice a week depending on mileage can't really be done at the pit. It would have to be done elsewhere. But the inspections can be done there. The daily inspections are done for safety reasons. That can be done there. It's the servicing, the working, and the adjusting that can't be done. Dorothy Wood: The truck would have to go twice a week. That is a lot of trucks. Eddie Bourdon: Potentially every truck once or twice a week, which would be basically a total of 50 trips in a course of a week and it could be restricted in terms of the time of day so that it wouldn't bother people early in the morning. Dorothy Wood: It doesn't make sense maybe but I'm not into truck repair. Could it be done, lets say done on Tuesday and Thursday only. Eddie Bourdon: The problem there is that they're operating everyday. They need to be safe everyday. That's the primary goal here is safety. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Barry Knight: Joe. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition we have Bruce Bright. Barry Knight: Welcome Bruce. Bruce Bright: Hello. Barry Knight: Please state your name. Bruce Bright: My name is Bruce Bright. I thank you for the opportunity to speak about the Use Permit for the borrow pit. My wife and I have lived in our house on Buzzard Neck Road for the past 33 years. We live next door to Bonney Bright Farms where the majority of this hauling sand pit truck operation occurs. For the past several years, we've been aware of significant increases in the number and size of the dump trucks being used in conjunction with that business. What was once a few small dump trucks has grown Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 10 into a fleet of approximately 25 much larger trucks owned by Bonney. These trucks are traveling Buzzard Neck Road six days a week. We routinely see these trucks leaving the farm as early as 5:30 a.m. Their trucks make a lot of noise starting up, idling in the morning getting ready to leave. The clanging of the empty truck bins as they travel the unleveled driveway is loud and disruptive. Many of these same trucks return off and on, all day long for reasons unknown to us and often times for only a few minutes at a time. The trucks also pose major safety issues as they come and go on this narrow country road. It is impossible to meet one of these trucks without having to drive partially off the paved surface and having to come to a slow pace or have to stop to allow the trucks to go by and violations to the 35 MPH speed limit zone are frequent. The trucks are stored, maintained, serviced and fueled on the farm property that is zoned agricultural. On Sundays, the trucks are moved around as they are pressured washed, which is another noisy process. It is apparent that the whole borrow pit hauling business is operating out of the farm location. On August 1, the City officials notified Bonney that he had to relocate the trucks because he was in violation of zoning. On September 1, the contract trucks that were being stored on the property and maintained there as well were removed. Even though the contract trucks were removed, Bonney's trucks still remained. The contract trucks have been reserved on several occasions to return to the farm to be maintenance and the repair shops as well. Please note that our concerns do not in any way relate the farm use of the vehicles that are used on the farm or stored. Our concerns are just for the borrow pit business. We recommend that you accept the conditions as set forth by Planning, particularly Condition 19, which requires to relocation of the dump trucks that are used in the operation of the hauling business to a more appropriate industrial zoned site off of Buzzard Neck Road. I am asking also that the storage, maintenance and fueling of the dump trucks on the farm property be relocated as soon as possible. It is vague to us the way it written that he could have a year to continue to run these trucks. Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any question for Mr. Bright? Dorothy Wood: Bruce, you don't really have a problem with the borrow pit just the trucks. Bruce Bright: Not at all. We're asking about the maintenance of the brakes. That's just one maintenance issue. You've still got the repair of the trucks and everything else that goes on with repairing these trucks on a regular basis. Are there any other questions? Barry Knight: Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next speaker in opposition is Sarah Culpepper. Sarah Culpepper: Hi. My name is Sarah Catherine Culpepper and I'm a resident of 5476 Buzzard Neck Road. I'm speaking in opposition of the application for the renewal of the Conditional Use Permit for the borrow pit expansion if all the conditions are not met. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 11 Other than that, I have no problems with the expansion of the condition. While I have little interest in restricting the use of another property owner's land, I am compelled to act when it begins to negatively affect my family. It continues to negatively affect my family. And once that happens I feel compelled to seek help from you. I was raised on Buzzard Neck Road and I have never experienced the amount of unnecessary traffic being generated by these sand trucks on such a narrow country road. My family has experienced safety issues and other concerns that you should find in your report that was submitted to you in December 2005. I hope you have found time to look at the report and it has helped you to understand our concerns that we have on Buzzard Neck Road on a daily basis. I am in favor of Condition #19 and the removal of the trucks off of Buzzard Neck Road. However, I have concerns regarding the time allotment and the inspections of this matter. I would like to feel confident that the City would be holding the property owner to these conditions. I want to be sure that City of Virginia Beach is planning on monitoring the conditions being recommended and plans on inspecting the applicant to be sure that the trucks have been removed from Buzzard Neck Road. The City of Virginia Beach has also set forth some other conditions that were not met as of October 2005. That is why that I am asking that they make sure they monitor those conditions that they're setting forth at this time. In conclusion, I remain in opposition to the renewal of the Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the borrow pit on Princess Anne Road if the applicant is not in compliance to all conditions set forth by the City of Virginia Beach but most of all Condition #19. I am in favor and insist the City hold the applicant responsible for removing the trucks from Buzzard Neck Road in a timely fashion. I am requesting that before the applicant is granted a one-year extension to his permit that he is required to be full compliance of the 19 conditions set forth today. I would like to thank Karen Lasley and the Planning Department for hearing our concerns and taking the time to mediate them and I'm asking for members of the Commission today to also do the same thing. I am confident that you will be fair and professional in regards to this application. I also have a copy of my report that was submitted in December. Barry Knight: Any questions for Ms. Culpepper? Thank you. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker in opposition is Dick Shaffer. Barry Knight: Welcome. Dick Shaffer: Morning. My name is Dick Shaffer, actually Richard for technical reasons. I moved to Buzzard Neck Road in 1973. I appreciate Richard Hancock's discussion about the noise. Not only do I have noise, when those trucks hit those bricks, our building shakes. It literally shakes on its foundation. I live on the first curve in there and it is extremely dangerous. The City has had to come out there and widen the curve because it is a not literally a curb. When we try to get a truck and school bus around there, it is very difficult. I am very concerned at the point where I put a barrier in my front yard. It is sort of a study. When we were remodeling the house, the kids were playing in the front yard. I'm concerned about their safety if one of them should pass right Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 12 out there. So, I put a little barrier out there with shrubs. I'm not against Bonney Bright and his operation. I don't want him to lose his business and have to go out of business. God forbid. I'm very concerned about the safety of myself and other people on that road. Simple mathematics. I've been sitting here thinking. If he does a million plus miles a year on 25 vehicles and those 25 vehicles have to go up and down Buzzard Neck Road that road is not built for that. I've talked to Roger Lane with the Highway's Department for the City. He said he appreciated my concerns and everything but there is nothing that he could really do because the road is a country road. You put that many trucks on Princess Anne Road and the same amount of trucks on a small country road that the shoulders are constantly deteriorating that doesn't make good sense. So, I ask the Planning Commission to take these comments into consideration and please for our safety and for our peace of mind in being able to sleep, those conditions were not there when I moved to that area. I know that. Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Shaffer. Thank you. Joseph Strange: Our last speaker in opposition is John Richardson. John Richardson: Good afternoon members of the Commission. My name is John Richardson. I'm a local attorney. I represent Ogden Reed. Mr. Reed owns a 500 acre track of land right below the North Carolina line that abuts the property line. His concern is the dewatering aspect of the borrow pit not so much the truck traffic. It doesn't impact him. His concern is with the expansion of roughly two times the size of the existing pit. It may affect his property negatively. His request, of course, is in a letter I sent so I won't belabor the point is to ask that a professional environmental assessment be done to determine what impact that would have on the neighboring property before a permit is issued to expand the borrow pit. Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Richardson. Ms. Anderson. John Richardson: Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: Mr. Richardson, would the new Condition #20 help you out with the quarterly reports on the testing? John Richardson: It may well. Janice Anderson: I think that was just added and it may address your problems. John Richardson: It may well. Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: Okay. John Richardson: I'll certainly point that back to my client. I just saw that this afternoon. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 13 Janice Anderson: Right because that is new. Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Richardson. John Richardson: Yes sir. Barry Knight: They voluntarily raised the depth up to 32 feet. That will keep the cone of depression down some. Also, like Ms. Anderson said with four reports per year they check static water level on that too, so that may help somewhat. John Richardson: Yes sir. Barry Knight: Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Where is your client's property? Barry Knight: Use the laser John. John Richardson: It's called the Flyway Club Mr. Ripley. It's on the North Carolina line right about along here and his property fronts on Back Bay and runs from Back Bay to Currituck Sound. It's just barely the North Carolina line. You see the sign that says, "Welcome to North Carolina" going to Knotts Island, there is a small trailer. Not a trailer park but a campsite, and the next property to it is the Flyaway Club. It's been there since the 1930s. His father bought the property and developed the club. It's a hunting club. A lot of land is farmed. Ronald Ripley: Has he had any problem with dewatering to date? John Richardson: No sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. John Richardson: He is not at his home as we spoke. He is concerned. Ronald Ripley: It raises a concern. John Richardson: Yes sir. He is just concerned. He knows of Mr. Bright and thinks he is a well -respected businessman. We all do. He is just concerned that his farmland and his home might be negatively impacted by the expansion of the borrow pit. Ronald Ripley: So, Mr. Scott if this report reports a water issue, what happens? Does it stop operation until you figure it out or what? Robert Scott: We may have to do that depending on what exactly we find. What I think Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 14 we're really concerned about is saltwater intrusion. That's the number one concern. I can't fix that if it occurs. If there is evidence that is happening or about to happen that is very important. It depends on what's found, I think. We want to be as prudent as possible. Barry Knight: Any other questions for Richardson? Thank you. John Richardson: Thank you Mr. Knight. Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Kendall Smith Barry Knight: Welcome sir. State your name please. Kendall Smith: My name is Kendall Smith. I'm assistant Refuge Manager at Mackay Island Natural Wildlife Refuge. I'm here on behalf of Tim Cooper, Refuge Manager who is at another meeting today. He has offered a letter that I will provide to you all. I ask that I read that. In the interest of time, I'm going to skip down our two major concerns. The second paragraph reads, the existing mine operation is pumping water into agricultural ditches for the potential recharge of local ground water. The agricultural ditches are supposed to be holding water to allow ground water recharge and the settling of suspended materials. The water control structures that surround the facility are currently inoperative and do not preclude discharge of water into Back Bay. Water is discharged into Back Bay that has heavy sediment loads, which have adverse impacts on the Bay. The extensive corrosion has created holes in the water control structures that will require replacement. Due to brackish water conditions, aluminum or galvanized structures should be required in all areas where agricultural ditches exist the property. The applicant should be required to routinely maintain all structures and the settling basin should also be considered since the recharge of ground water was not the original intent of the agricultural ditches. The settling basin that empties into the ditches will provide additional protection to Back Bay if water control structures were breached in the future." The second concern, which you are apparently aware of is that the applicant has a proposal for a pit in North Carolina. The concern of the Refuge Manager Cooper is that these can be considered together and these planning issues concern they may not be considered. Also, in Paragraph 3, it is our understanding that the existing operation is under 75 round truck trips per day. It appears that the North Carolina mine could add up to 200 additional round truck trips daily. That is based on the plans that were submitted to North Carolina. So, that is a lot of additional traffic that would have an impact on our visitors to the refuge. Most likely this would discourage them from visiting the refuge and cause safety concerns. That sort of summarizes the paragraph that I would like to add to the record. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Smith. Are there any questions for Mr. Smith? Thank you sir. I think Ron. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 15 Ronald Ripley: You're saying that the water discharges into the ditches to recharge, and then it's going into the Bay? Kendall Smith: That is our understanding that is the purpose of them. Two other controlled structures that we are aware of are not functioning correctly and allow water to pass through them. In discussions with Bonney he says there are some other water controlled structures but we are not aware of those. Our concern is that the situation be examined to verify that water is being prevented from directly going into the Bay. Barry Knight: Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: So, if these were repaired then you wouldn't have an issue? Is that correct? Kendall Smith: Yes, if they were replaced and were functional. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Smith. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Laurie Grogotis. Barry Knight: Excuse me. State your name please. Laurie Grogotis: Laurie Grogotis. I'm up here as a concerned citizen living in Creeds. I have children that ride the school buses. Although Mr. Bright may own 25 trucks there are many more trucks that come up and down that road on a daily basis before 6:00 a.m. When you look at the ditches on either side of the road and how narrow Princess Anne Road is and winding, those trucks go flying. There are no traffic lights to slow their speed. Many times they are over the side of the road. It is a huge safety issue. My kids say their buses shake when they pass them. Another concern that I have is with the amount of trucks, it was my understanding that Mr. Bright's original Permit was for 25 truckloads a day. I believe Ms. Lasley has confirmed that. There are that many trucks before 9:00 a.m. So, my question is who monitors this? If he's looking for expansion who is going to monitor that? Princess Anne Road and if you sit back even if you go to monks for lunch, you will see a continual convoy of trucks of all sizes, maybe a car here and there. It takes me sometimes quite a bit of time to pull out of my street and those trucks are just flying by. And as far as the wells that were installed, I guess my question is, I believe that Mr. Bright installed those wells closer to where his pit is not bordering houses that are around it especially those near Back Bay, which certainly would be affected by salt intrusion. So, I'm wondering where that responsibility lies. As far as the drainage count goes, I have personally seen where those ditches run off to a canal that opens up directly to Back Bay. There is a Slouth gate. It is inoperable. And that was of just this past weekend. So, I would just like to know who is that will monitor this and police these amount of truckloads that have already been grossly ignored. Thank you. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 16 Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Thank you. We'll get that on the rebuttal and in our discussion phase. We'll address those concerns of yours. Laurie Grogotis: Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: That's it for the speakers. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Again, we appreciate everyone taking the time to come down, and putting in their two cents. First of all, lets make sure it is clear and I mentioned it to Mr. Richardson. And you all know this and this is not an application to expand the Bonney Bright borrow pit located in Virginia Beach, so that's clear. Where to start? I think the one thing that we talked about is when the notice that Mr. Bright received in August 1, was received and I was first brought into this issue. It was my opinion and it remains my opinion today that the third party contractors whose trucks were on his home place, those trucks were not permitted to be there. And those trucks were removed immediately or almost immediately. That was my advice and I know that Mr. Bright adhered to that advice. Those trucks are not there and to my knowledge have not been there since. Now, there may have been someone who drove up there at some point but they're not stored there, serviced there, or fueled there. They are not allowed to be there because he doesn't own that part in his agricultural operation. It is not necessarily clear cut with regard to the trucks that he has and uses in his agricultural business but again, we're not going to belabor that point here today but there is a disagreement as to whether that is doable or not. One thing that we are not in disagreement with and that is that the trucks are being removed from Mr. Bright's site, his home place as far as their storage is concerned, their fueling is concerned. They will be moved to the borrow pit site before City Council hears this application. It should be completed within the next ten days to two weeks, certainly by the end of the month at the latest. That isn't an issue. I appreciate some of the comments that were made in that regard but those trucks are being moved from the home place but the servicing is clearly an issue as I indicated to you. Regarding Mr. Shaffer's statements about noise of the brakes? Mr. Bright's trucks do not have Jake brakes. And those are the brakes that cause a lot of noise. Some of the contractor's trucks do and people operating trucks in Virginia Beach, whether they come from northeast North Carolina or Chesapeake with sand can operate with those brakes. If the City wants to regulate those brakes that is the City's business to do and the City could probably do that but they are not Mr. Bright's trucks that have those loud brakes called Jake brakes. Mr. Smith's comment about water going into Back Bay. Mr. Bright has indicated that Mr. Smith hasn't seen the replacement structures that are down stream of the structures that he referred to and Mr. Bright contends that there is no working discharge into Back Bay. Those structures that Mr. Smith referred to are superceded by structures that are down stream of those, which I don't believe he has seen. We certainly are not discharging and if there are any structures that are in need of repair or replacement to prohibit discharge into Back Bay that certainly Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 17 will happen because that is a condition that's been met. Let me speak one minute if I could about the monitoring wells. The wells were installed but there was a long delay in part because of the City having commissioned the Malcolm Purney Study and then getting back to Mr. Bright and explain to him where they wanted these wells to be installed. These wells were installed where the City and Malcolm Purney requested they be installed. The first reports were delivered to the City some time back, about a month half ago. There is no evidence of any intrusion. If you read the report from Malcom Purney and our experts in 2000, if we stay above 32 feet it is not going to be an issue but we will still provide those reports. I just wanted to make sure that was real clear. We're not going to have a saltwater intrusion problem with these limitations that are in place now and have been in place the entire time that Mr. Bright has been operating. It is a difficult situation. Obviously for most everyone involved with regard to the issue of Buzzard Neck Road. My client has expressed a willingness to try make improvements to Buzzard Neck Road to add shoulders to widen the road and do some things along those lines but the reality of it is that servicing those trucks on a limited basis is going to have to happen somewhere other than at the pit. His home place is in close proximately of the pit, which is not the case with regard to other options as to where the servicing can take place. We are still going to need sand in Virginia Beach and that sand is going to come from either existing pits in Virginia Beach or pits in northeast North Carolina or southern Chesapeake that is going to use the exact same roads. They're going to be operated by people we don't have any control over. Who aren't pillars of our community here in Virginia Beach and I think we all need to keep that in mind. I really do appreciate the fact that Bruce Bright has indicated on more than one occasion that his intent is not to try to suggest that Bonney is not doing a good service to the City as far as the sand operation is concerned but simply his personal issues with regard to the noise and what have you. There is certainly some sympathy to that. We believe there needs to be a recognition. It doesn't make any common sense to have these trucks be brought up to the northern part of the City everyday or once or twice a week to be serviced when it is something that can be done there very quickly. Also, I want to point out that the City inspectors come in and take over Bonney's shop twice a year and inspect these vehicles again, for service and to make sure that they are safe. That will take place some place else. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I appreciate you listening to me. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon, I have two right off the bat. Mr. Smith came in and said about the water -controlled structures there. I know Bonny has a very good repoir with Makay Island. In fact, he has been farming some of their land for years. If Bonney could just get him in his pickup truck and carry him back there and show him the weirs, it would answer that question right there. I am sure he will. Eddie Bourdon: That is exactly what Bonny whispered in my ear Mr. Knight and that is to get him out there and show him. Barry Knight: The second thing is these brakes, the Jake brakes, I don't believe any of Bonney's trucks have these Jake brakes on them but the independent truckers do. I don't Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 18 think the City wants to go the route of enacting an ordinance. These Jake brakes you don't need them on flat ground. They're kind of the nature of the beast. If you have a great big old coal truck that is used to going up and down hills and now you carry them on flat country and you have a Jake brake, you're going to use them. Part of the reason you use them is because it saves your brakes on your truck. But if Mr. Bright, and I feel confident he will do this, also really, really encourages these independent trucks not to use their Jake brakes. It would to a long ways on good will because if they continue to use them the City may enact an ordinance. I don't want to see any more ordinances happen. If you can just convey that to Bonney, I'm sure he will do that. Eddie Bourdon: I'm absolutely certain that Mr. Bright will absolutely encourage the third parties who haul for him on occasion to not use their Jake brakes. I just want to make sure that every body understands and appreciates the fact that there are lots of other people hauling sand in large trucks in Virginia Beach south and other wise, that is an issue that needs to be addressed. It really needs to be addressed comprehensively. Mr. Bright can't be held responsible for allowing brakes on people's trucks that aren't his own. I certainly assure you that he will be happy to ask all third parties that haul from his pit to not use their Jake brakes. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Those third parties won't be going down Buzzard Neck Road. Again, Mr. Bruce Bright was honest enough to indicate to me that was a significant betterment. It didn't eliminate his concern but it was certainly a betterment that took place in response to the City's letter on August 1. Janice Anderson: Eddie, I just want to make it clear. The application is for an extension of the borrow pit. It is not an expansion. Eddie Bourdon: No. This is not an application to expand the borrow pit. Janice Anderson: Okay. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: Eddie, I was trying to see if we could get the two parties together just to cooperate a little bit. Someone mentioned that they actually had to bring them there to wash them and fuel them. It seems like that could be done somewhere else. Eddie Bourdon: I'm not here suggesting anything. r-- Dorothy Wood: You wouldn't have to be there twice a week. Eddie Bourdon: I'm not suggesting that they be washed there or fueled there. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 19 Dorothy Wood: That is what someone said today that they were. Eddie Bourdon: That is being done and has been done the entire time but the conditions that staff has recommended to you will prohibit that and we are totally going to abide by those conditions. The only thing that we have asked for consideration of rather than litigate about it or fight about it is the repair aspect. Not wash. Not fuel but repair. Today, we're not requesting that he be permitted to fuel them at his site as much as he liked to do that or to wash them at his home site. We're not asking for that. All we really need is to be able to have the vehicles serviced. Essentially, the primary issues are the brakes. They will need to be adjusted generally once a week and sometimes twice depending on the number miles the truck is hauling and just factors that are not capable of being controlled, bumps in the road and usage. It is the lifting of the truck and the adjusting of the brakes that can't be done in the pit. There are servicing issues that can be scheduled. It can be done at the same time. It is the brakes that have to inspected daily, it can be done at the pit but when they have to be adjusted that can't be done at the pit. That is the principal problem with regard to the conditions that they're dealing with. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley. Al Henley: Mr. Bourdon. I know there have been comments and concerns about the proposed farm pit and pits up adjacent to the farm. You may or may not have an answer to this but is the life expediency of the one in Virginia Beach to the be completely exhausted prior to the operation, if it is approved in Currituck County for that to happen? Our reason for it is that our concerns in light of the audience is that both of these pits are going to be working simultaneously together and it is going to double the issue of the trucks on that road. Eddie Bourdon: The pit in Virginia Beach depending upon volume of excavation doesn't have as it is currently approved doesn't have twelve months worth of life left. So, it is inconceivable to me given the process that the one in North Carolina will go through, which I don't have anything to do with that by the time that is online and if it is online, this pit will be out or there will be some other application that will coordinate that whole thing. At this point, all we have is what we have. What we're dealing with is what we got. That pit that is there does not have a significant amount sand volume to be mined. We may be coming back at some point depending upon what takes place in northeastern North Carolina. There would be no practical reason to be operating two pits. It wouldn't make any sense. Barry Knight: Mr. Waller. John Waller: There was the question that I was going to ask him. But in addition when r — the Currituck mine is open where would the trucks that service that be serviced? Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 20 Eddie Bourdon: Well, when you're dealing with a situation that is uncertain as the one we're dealing with is in this instance, the investment to try to a build a facility that services vehicles that is not going to be made if at some point there is an approval for a significant enough operation with a long enough useful life in it then there is the possibility of constructing some place to service them. When you're dealing with what we're dealing with here today and all that we're dealing with here today and that is a pit in Virginia that doesn't have more than twelve months useful life you're not going to spend tens of thousands of dollars to build a shop to have those trucks serviced at this facility. John Waller: In North Carolina? Eddie Bourdon: No. I'm talking about this. This is all that we can deal with is what we have here today. If it is conceivable and we're not there and I don't even know where we are with regard to that approval process but if there is an approval for one in North Carolina then the potential exists to actually invest in the infrastructure at that point it could pay for itself over the life of the pit that doesn't exist today. John Waller: That is why I asked if the mine opens in North Carolina we will have a place to service them in North Carolina not in Buzzard Neck Road. Eddie Bourdon: That is something that is a possibility. Yes. That is something that we have discussed. But that has not been approved at this point. But if that were to be approved that is an option. But that could be many months. This pit could be done before that one may even get approved. I don't know that. I'm not versed in how long that process is going to take. John Waller: All the noise that happens on Buzzard Neck Road will be over with in a year because the mine is going to be closed and the trucks won't be there. Eddie Bourdon: I absolutely anticipate that to be the case Mr. Waller. Yes. Most of the truck traffic has been reduced tremendously by the removal of the third party contractor trucks from Buzzard Neck Road. By the end of this month there won't be any trucks on Buzzard Neck Road. What we are trying to have an opportunity to deal with is the servicing of those trucks for an interim period of time until something comes about that will make it feasible to do it somewhere other than Buzzard Neck Road. But that doesn't exist today other than to bring them up to northern part of the City, which defies common sense and logic. We don't control the fact that this particular situation arose because of the five-year period of this Use Permit expiring. If we had a little more time we might not be having all this dialogue about their may be a solution for this but we don't have one. That is why we're in the dilemma were in. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 21 Dorothy Wood: Eddie, we've been talking a lot about the truck traffic but really you're not asking for a rezoning so that the trucks can be repaired there. Since they're not agricultural trucks they really can't under the present zoning. Is that correct? Eddie Bourdon: Ms. Wood. It is my argument and belief that because they are owned by an agricultural owner who is operating an agri-business in the City of Virginia Beach on property zoned agriculture as this property is zoned agriculture and because those vehicles are using that agri-business, even if it is a small percentage of the time for something other than hauling sand then it is an appropriate accessory use that can take place on his property. Rather than get into a legal argument about it. There have been attorney's advising Mr. Bright, who had advised him that he can win in court. I haven't gone that route. I don't think that helps anybody. I don't think it helps Mr. Bright. I think the best thing we can do is do actually what Mr. Bright has attempted to do and that is work with his family members and neighbors and not get into a big fight with everybody. It is the Zoning Administrator's opinion that these vehicles aren't agricultural vehicles and that is not defined anywhere in your ordinance what an agricultural vehicle is, and therefore she has opined that they can not be stored, fueled or be maintained on his farm site zoned agriculture but they must be maintained on his borrow pit site zoned agriculture. Again, you asked the question. I'm not here trying to perpetrate an argument. I think its appropriate to understand why this isn't black and white. Mr. Bright is trying to be a good citizen and a good agri-business owner, and try to work through these problems. Unfortunately, where we stand today we don't have a simple solution that would make everybody happy. I wish we did. Believe me, a lot of us have worked long and hard trying to find one. I'm open to suggestions. I've listened to a lot of people and I talked with a lot people. I think we've come a long way. I think everybody on Buzzard Neck Road who is open minded about it that we've come a long way. I hope we can get it. Dorothy Wood: Well, certainly with my home economics degree I'm not arguing with a lawyer Mr. Bourdon. I do wonder about that. I also wondered why since you all knew you were coming here today why weren't the trucks moved now rather than waiting. Eddie Bourdon: They just can't be moved at a snap of a finger. First of all, we looked at a number of alternatives. We try to find other alternatives to be able utilize the existing facility without using Buzzard Neck Road. That was number one. Number two when the decision was made and we had a couple of options that we thought were going to work but they turned out they didn't work. When we got to the point where we had no other alternative then that was the decision that was made. And, that involves having to take a lot of steps. It is not just a simple matter we'll just go out in the park in the middle of the field. You've got to get sets of keys. You've got to get security set up. You've got to do a number of things that take time to get done. And we were dealing with the holidays on top of that. All those things are basically in place at this point. And as I said, those trucks will be at the borrow pit site by the end of January. But that is an effort to avoid Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 22 any disagreement and litigation over what's a permitted accessory use on an agricultural property. We've agreed to the conditions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Ron. Ronald Ripley: If you're not able to service the trucks on the Buzzard Neck Road property where would you service them? Eddie Bourdon: That is what we're in the process of locating alternatives as to where we can service them. We don't have that decision made. It will probably be somewhere either in southern Chesapeake or in the middle of Virginia Beach. We are not aware of any place that can happen down south. I mean in Virginia Beach when I say down south. Joseph Strange: And that is because of the zoning? Eddie Bourdon: Exactly. I'm not aware of any property that is zoned. You can get a Conditional Use Permit for repair of agriculture vehicles but the Zoning Administrator says this is not an agricultural vehicle. We're a dog chasing its tail around in the circle. Ronald Ripley: So if you move it to the AG-2 here it is permissible but it is not permissible in other AG. Eddie Bourdon: Yes. The Zoning Administrator and I don't disagree with her on this. Her term and I'm sorry to keep speaking for her but her position I think is an accessory use on the borrow pit site as an accessory to the borrow pit. I wouldn't disagree with that. Ronald Ripley: I think that would be the tide. Is there other land adjacent to this existing pit that an expansion of this pit that you would be coming in and asking for later? Is that something that is in the mill? Eddie Bourdon: Things hinge on what is going to take place with the application in Currituck. We may come back here depending on what takes place there. That is all up in the air at this point. That may be denied. And we may be back here looking to expand this pit. That is what I would anticipate happening. Until we have something approved that would justify the expenditure that is the dilemma that we are dealing with. Ronald Ripley: I'm sympathetic to both sides. I see the neighbor's point of view with the truck traffic, and I see the operator's point of view. I'm wrestling. To me, a solution would be to get some time to relocate a facility or work it out with the Agricultural Advisory Committee but what I'm hearing is not real definite. That is concerning. If it was definite then those kinds of plans could be made. Capital could be assembled and property facility constructed so you could operate. I'm kind of floundering with this now. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 23 Eddie Bourdon: You and I are on the same predicament Mr. Ripley. I had hope that maybe there would be an approval in hand in northeast North Carolina, which would give us a direction we needed to go in. At this point, we don't have any choice. We have agreed to these conditions. That's the long and short of it. We will have to make arrangements to have the vehicles serviced. The predicament here is they are under the interpretation that the Zoning Administrator of our ordinance and of these vehicles there is no where else that can be serviced other than on a borrow pit or on a property zoned industrial or commercial up in the northern part of the City of Virginia Beach. And, that is why I think it is something that does need some review and discussion among the agri- business owners and the Agricultural Advisory Committee. I think that is where some discussion needs to take place. It is a difficult circumstance. We're dealing with a regulatory perspective. I do understand what the concerns are with regard to people on Buzzard Neck Road and widening the road and doing improvements to the road is something that we're willing to do. I don't know if that is going to satisfy their concerns. And limiting the time of day and those things we will also do. Again, don't know if that is going to satisfy their concerns. Barry Knight: Are there any more questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: Sorry to ramble on. Barry Knight: Thank you. We'll open it up for discussion among the Commissioners. Okay. Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: Yes. We've had the opportunity and I think everybody did, to visit both sites, the residential site on Buzzard Neck and the dig site. From our understanding in the report that these vehicles have been serviced there and fueled at the residential location for quite a number of years without any complaint. And, as the report has indicated Mr. Bright has run this business in an outstanding manner so far as he character. But I think the main issue gets down to Condition #19 and that's it. I would be supportive of approval as written by the City with the 22 conditions. Condition 19 says that repair has to be on the property properly zoned. Now it is Mr. Bourdon's interpretation that it is properly zoned now where he is doing because it is AG, then there shouldn't be a problem with this zoning. I know that Karen Lasley has a different opinion and that it is not properly zoned in the residential area. I don't know if we want to get the City Attorney to chime in on her opinion but anyway, I think that is where we are. My issue with the request of saying it is okay to do it for four or five months if it is not allowed in the zoning, I don't know how we can say we're going to let it happen. Hopefully, the changes Mr. Bourdon has made by moving those trucks out and things like that and if there is no call out to the site there may not be a violation. But, anyway I know it is a limited use and it is a big burden on him and not that I'm totally agreeable with it but I think that is where I am stuck. I think if the zoning doesn't allow it right now, I don't see how we can say it is okay for even an extended period of time. If they're in the opinion that they can do it then there shouldn't be an issue. But, they've run a business Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 24 without any problems before. Unfortunately, now there is and I think that is the situation. So, I would like to be in support of approval with the 21 current conditions. Barry Knight: Any other discussion? Ron. Ronald Ripley: I agree with Jan. That's the crux of it and that's Condition #19. But I'm trying to look at it from both points of view. I'm viewing it from the businessman's point of view. Basically, he has operated. Yes. Apparently, the City believes it is illegal. However, I think this operator since he's operated as such needs some time to transition if you will. If it hasn't been corrected today, I believe the City could have corrected it if they felt that strong about it. I am sure they do feel strong about it or we wouldn't be here but still it could have been corrected. I believe that the neighbors need to know that it is going to stop at one point. I think the businessman needs some opportunity to resolve it. I think 5 to 6 month time period would permit the Agricultural Advisory Committee to convene and to address it so a different twist may show up at that point that makes some sense to this body and for the neighbors, and to the business community. And it also gives a little bit of time to determine what may happen with the future expansion whether there's going to be a need for additional capital or just service if off site and be done with it. That is my difference. I agree with what you're saying. That's my degree of difference though. I think we need some transition period. Barry Knight: Okay. Jay first. Then Gene. Jay Bernas: I agree with Commissioner Ripley. But I would also like to address one of the other issues one of the citizens raised was the number of trips generated. I see that Condition #17 limiting 75 a day. I think it would be very difficult to monitor that and I would recommend to the Commission that maybe the applicant submit monthly or quarterly reports on the number of truck trips generated. I just think that from an enforcement standpoint unless you have a City inspector out there everyday counting trucks I think to more efficiently do that from a monitoring standpoint to add a condition to required them to submit a monthly or quarterly report to the Zoning Administrator for review and compliance. Al Henley: I have a question to the Planning staff. Ms. Lasley, there seems to be and I have the same concern as some of these speakers that there is an interpretation that the applicant, if approved, has one year to comply to these conditions. My question is if it is approved today under the current conditions, under all 22 items, what time limit does the applicant have to comply to all 22 conditions? Karen Lasley: I would expect immediate compliance except on the improvements that have to be made into the entrance, the turn lanes and the access pavement. That takes a while to get into place. They have to go through Planning Review. But the rest of the conditions would apply immediately. Al Henley: Immediately. You mean today assuming if it was approved? Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 25 Karen Lasley: If City Council approves it from that date. Al Henley: If City Council approves. Which is in February, I believe it's heard. Karen Lasley: Correct. Al Henley: May I have some more time? I'd like to thank the applicant and his attorney that I think they have worked diligently to improve the conditions to satisfy a lot of complaints in the neighborhood. I think that is good. I think really the only concern that remains now, the primary concern is the utilization of the garage, if you will to service the vehicles. And the way I understand it the trucks are going to need probably servicing twice a week. That is based on current conditions. If that is the case there would be absolutely no change in those conditions. The positive side to that is that the trucks will be moved by February 1, 2006, so that will help the residents out considerably because the noise and the traffic, and the safety issues that have risen. My concern is that the borrow pit in Virginia Beach has a life expectancy of approximately one year or twelve more months. So, if the garage is not moved or relocated then the residents will still have to continue to put up with the concerns that they have on the garage. But I think more importantly if one year expired and of course those conditions will go away. But more importantly there is a probability and a possibility that a borrow pit will open up adjacent to this existing borrow pit. If that is approved then a number of years will be productive on mining sand from that location. That will still require the garage services, as we know it today located on Buzzard Neck Road. I believe as Planning Commissioners, we don't have the right to challenge the law. We do have a law issued here where zoning has been violated. It's a zoning law. It is really difficult I know for the Planning Commissioners. I know it is for me to look at those when we have the applicant has been living in the area and his family for many generations. It has developed into a great concern, not for only the immediate neighborhood but people who reside further down the road where the general people who utilize Princess Anne Road through Pungo and everywhere else. I have received a number of calls, complaints, and inquiries about the continuation of that. So it does give me a great deal of concern in trying to reach a happy compromise here to as a win -win situation. I think that the conditions here that is very helpful for the Planning Commission to make some decisions on this. I believe that some of the compromises that have been by the applicant and his attorney will help a great deal on the concerns that the residents on Buzzard Neck Road have had. Actually, the uncertainties that we have in North Carolina, it is hard for me to, I guess alter from the existing conditions, these 22 conditions. I'm going to make a motion shortly, but I believe, there are some other comments that I believe, Mr. Ripley, did you have another comment? Mr. Crabtree. I'm going to allow Mr. Crabtree to make some comments before I will make a motion. Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: I'm inclined to sort of agree with what Mr. Ripley said that I think this Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 26 is a dilemma that has been there for a long time. I think that moving the trucks is a positive thing. However I agree with trying to repair trucks in a sandy area is not the thing to do. You have to have time to find another repair facility in order to properly keep the trucks on the road. Otherwise you're not going to keep them on the road. I personally am in favor of going ahead and approving this but I think the real part is got to have a delay to give the applicant an appropriate period of time to find an alternative. It can't be done in the next week or two weeks. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Ripley if it is delayed for about six months. That gives the Agricultural Advisory Committee also a chance to look at this zoning ordinance and to make a decision whether or not these trucks are AG trucks or whether they are industrial commercial trucks and how it should apply. I'm in favor of giving six months leeway on this particular one. You can just find a new repair facility tomorrow. It is impossible. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: Well, I'm in favor of all these to except for one thing. Can we send something to City Council where we know somebody has broken the law? Barry Knight: Let's ask Ms. Wilson. Kay Wilson: Chairman Knight and members of the Commission. It is the City's decision and the determination of the Zoning Administrator that repairing these trucks on this AG property is a violation of the zoning ordinance. That has been a determination of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Bourdon has a different opinion but that is really irrelevant to the City. This is a violation of the zoning ordinance. Okay. It is a violation. You really don't have the authority to allow them to continue a violation for any period of time. What you would be doing is saying that it's okay to violate the zoning ordinance. You can't allow them to violate the zoning ordinance. The way for this to be changed is for the Code to be changed. If they wanted to go change the code that is the way for this to be changed would be to change the code to do a new definition to change the code in some manner. That would be the way to make this available for them to repair these vehicles on the AG property. But if you have a motion to allow them to continue to repair the trucks on the AG property, that would be a violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Barry Knight: Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: I don't disagree that it's a legal issue. You look at it cut and dry. I don't disagree with that. I wouldn't expect anything else for you to say that. Okay. But as a Planning Commission I think it's our duty from a public's point of view, which we are essentially try to represent, we're tyring to bring what we think is some reason to the process too. Not that a lot of reasoning hasn't been applied to here because it has. We're making a recommendation to City Council. City Council may take that and throw it out. That is there prerogative too. I just see an operation that has been operating down there Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 27 for years. I see a man that is trying to continue to operate and finish up his business but I see residents having issues with the noise. I'm suggesting a transition period, which we do that in a lot of situations where a zoning ordinance comes into play but can be transitioned, etc. It is a gray area that I do recognize but I think it is a practical. It is not a solution but it's a practical part of this problem. Barry Knight: Mr. Ripley. I weigh in on that. You have hit all the points right on. We can't do anything. Our hands are pretty much tied. Legally, as far as how we can tweak this, we can still make a strong recommendation to Council that possibility they give him a predetermined set amount of time, if on Agricultural Advisory agenda, which I believe meets April 12, 2006 to get their recommendations but we can make that recommendation to Council. I don't believe that we could put it in the motion itself but we can certainly put it in the verbatim. They'll look at it. That is my view of it. Is there any other discussion? I'll entertain a motion. Al Henley: I'll make a motion to approve the application as listed in the 22 items with a note that it will be total number of trips from the borrow pit every 60 days to present it to Planning staff. Dorothy Wood: Are you adding Ron's? Barry Knight: You're just staying with the same 22 conditions. Dorothy Wood: But you're not adding Mr. Ripley's. Al Henley: No. Because I want to comply to the law as a junior Commissioner. I don't want to break the law. Barry Knight: A motion has been made. Do I have a second? Janice Anderson: Second. Barry Knight: Ms. Anderson has made a second. Ronald Ripley: Can I offer a substitute motion? Barry Knight: There is a motion on the floor and a second. Discussion? Ronald Ripley: I would like to offer a substitute motion. It is a substitute to his motion. That is basically that repairs as noted in Condition #19 be permitted on Buzzard Neck Road property for a period of five months. It will permit time for the applicant to secure an alternative repair arrangement. That is my substitute. Barry Knight: That is the substitute. Do I have a second to the substitute? Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 28 Dorothy Wood: Can I add that it would not to your substitute maybe the third substitute that they may be repaired but not stored or fueled there. Ronald Ripley: Just repair. That is all that I'm speaking of. Dorothy Wood: So you're taking out the stored on Condition #19. Ronald Ripley: I just spoke to the item about repair. Stored and fueling will remain off site. It is just for a period of five months. Eugene Crabtree: I'll second the motion. Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree seconds it. Is there any discussion on the substitute motion? Joseph Strange: I guess my question still comes back. Can we do something supporting something illegal? Hey, you can that I'm going to find the solution just like you do. I think its fair. We don't have the authority to do it how can we do it? Eugene Crabtree: What's the recommendation? Barry Knight: I guess we'll ask Ms. Wilson. Do we as a Planning Commission body, are we legally able to vote on the substitute motion as it was read? Kay Wilson: It's a violation of the zoning ordinance. Barry Knight: I hate to get back to it. Do we legally have the authority to vote on it as a recommendation to Council? Kay Wilson: You can vote on it you're voting on a violation to the zoning ordinance. Karen Lasley: And the Buzzard Neck Road site is technically not on your agenda. Just the borrow pit is. Ronald Ripley: It's the topic. Dorothy Wood: But this is Condition #19 is talking about Buzzard Neck Road. Karen Lasley: No its not. It's very general. It says that storage, repair and fueling of the trucks has to be done on a site that is zoned for that. Barry Knight: Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: I understand where everybody is trying to link to and I think everybody wants to work out a compromise. But I think Barry that the recommendation that you have I think would solve everything. We're being told by the City attorney that if we Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 29 make the motion that is automatically a violation under their opinion. So, we're voting in a violation of the zoning ordinance. I think if we pass it under Al's motion as is and then do a verbal recommendation that the City will be reasonable with any violations that may be noted by Mr. Bright if they come down for a violation, reasonable in resolving those violations or reasonable in exercising those. He has to be notified of the violation if maintenance occurs at that site and violations are made after this period of time that the City can be reasonable in dealing with those violations due to this burden. Kathy Katsias: So repeat it. Ronald Ripley: I rather have you call for the question. Barry Knight: We're still in the discussion. We'll ask Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: Is it the Commission's desire to include the modification of Condition #17 as I had recommended. Barry Knight: That is not on the table. It wasn't included in the motion. Jay Bernas: Okay. Al Henley: I included it my motion. Barry Knight: Oh, you did include it. So that was in the original motion. Was that included in the substitute motion? Jay, would you explain to Mr. Ripley about Condition #17. Jay Bernas: Condition #17. One of the concerns, one of the citizens raised was the number of trips generated by the borrow pit and that she didn't believe that is was more than 75 trips. I think from an enforcement standpoint instead of having an inspector sitting out there counting trucks to ask the applicant to submit monthly reports and I think Al recommended 60 days to submit a 60 day report to the Zoning Administrator so that we can ensure that there is compliance with respect to that condition. Barry Knight: Would you like to include that in your substitute motion? Ronald Ripley: Well, Al didn't you speak to that? Barry Knight: He did on the original motion but the substitute motion is still on the floor unless you've withdrawn it? Ronald Ripley: I'll put that in there. Barry Knight: You'll include that? Gene, will you concur to that on the second. Item #20 Bonney G. Bright Page 30 Eugene Crabtree: Yes. Barry Knight: I guess the substitute motion is on the floor. The substitute motion was first by Mr. Ripley and seconded by Gene to approve the application with the 22 conditions, will submit records every 60 days to Planning Department, and to allow an extension to repair only at its facility on Buzzard Neck Road for five months. Lets call for the question. AYE 6 NAY 5 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON NAY BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY NAY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT NAY LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE NAY WALLER NAY WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 6-5, the substitute motion has passed. Barry Knight: That's it. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you to everybody. I appreciate it. Barry Knight: If there's no more business before this body, the meeting stands adjourned. V1/VV/VD Il:U/ rAA /bib4368SU HIGGERSON BECHANAN INC U 002 -tt� - IGG RSON lNC. GENER4L CONTR4CTORS 1126 53M BAINBFUDGE BLVD. CHESAPEAKF-VA 23320 PHONE (757) 545AM5 FAX (757) 543 3930 January 9, 2006 City of Virgini Beach Virginia Beacb, VA Re: Bonney Bfight Farms Borrow Pit VA Beach. VA Gentlemen: It has come to our attention that the material available from the Borrow Pit operated by Bonney Bright Farms is rapidly being depleted and that an extension of this pit may not be approved by the City. Asa cc ntractor that does numerous projects in Hampton Roads in general, and Virginia Beach in particular, this concerns me deeply. I have been told by the operators of several of the other local bortow pits (E.V. Williams and M.M. Gunter, for example) that they are also running out of available material. Thus, any project which requires the use of a large quantity of select material from offsite source will be forced to haul this material from other localities, such as Moyock, Isle of Wight and Suffolk. This additional haul distance not only adds to the cost incurred by the se projects, but also increases the amount of dump trucks necessary to complete the job in a timely manner. This becomes not only a safety issue and an issue of additional wear and tear on the City's streets, but a financial issue as well, as prospective future industries consider the in eased cost of building in Virginia Beach. Higg on -Buchanan has used the material from Bonney Bright Farms numerous times in the past and would look forward to continuing to do so in the future. I ask you to please consider the positive impact that approving an extension of this pit would have on the City and its future growth. Thank ou for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact e: Very truly yours: HI GERSON-BUCHANAN, INC. i William A. M att, Jr. Vice President WAMJR/ghh SHEP SMITH, INC. NCy, EXCAVATION, AND S I T F CONTRACTORS Post Office Box 56076 • Virginia Beach, Virginia • 23456 Office: (757) 426-3777 • Fax: (757) 426-3877 January 10, 2006 Bonney Bright Sand 5513 Buzzard Neck Road Virginia Beach, VA 23457 Attention: Mr. Bonney Bright Dear Mr. Bright, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the outstanding service your company has provided over the past 14 years to our firm. Bonney Bright Sand has provided excellent quality clean fill materials as well as excellent service in providing these materials to our various projects throughout the years. Shep Smith, Inc. has had many projects in the City of Virginia Beach for various departments within the City of Virginia Beach. In fact, the City of Virginia Beach is one of our largest customers. It was due to the exceptionally clean high quality select borrow material provided by your company, that we were able to complete projects such as the Beach Sand Replenishment project for the City of Virginia Beach in February of 2000. Our firm has completed in the past and is currently working on many CIP projects for the City of Virginia Beach, including the 911 Emergency Communications Center currently under construction at the Virginia Beach Courthouse. From roads to bridges, to many of the new buildings at the municipal center built in the last twelve years, our firm has continually called upon Bonney Bright Sand for fill materials on these types of city projects. Our firm has also been proud to have the Virginia Beach City Public Schools as a recurring customer of Shep Smith, Inc., and we have used your company consistently on their projects. Our company has completed new construction or refurbishing and modification construction on approximately 20 schools in Virginia Beach in the last 12 years. The most recent project was Arrowhead Elementary School replacement completed in November of 2005. I believe it is imperative to the continuing construction industry in this area that the few sand fill suppliers that exist in our area be allowed to continue operations unimpeded. To lose a major supplier such as your company would be a tremendous blow to the current and future construction work in the Virginia Beach area. The suppliers operating in the area are already having difficulty meeting the demands of our growing region, and many of them in Virginia Beach are slated to become residential housing developments in the near future, which shall require even more select fill materials. The likelihood of another major supplier of building and structural fill being able to fill the void that would accompany the loss of your company is slim at best. Most of us realize that fording a new sandpit location in this area is highly unlikely; and if it was found, being able to acquire a permit to mine said sand from the City of Virginia Beach, or any other Hampton Roads city in the current political environment, makes the chances even more remote. It is unfortunate that our City must make a choice involving the construction industry and its related suppliers that have been a major catalyst in the fueling of what has been in the past Virginia Beach's two best revenue producers; housing and tourism. Nearly every project our firm has completed has been either public projects funded directly by the city or projects which involved matching funds or contributions to the construction cost from the State or Federal governments. No one ever wants an industrial plant, and air field, a gas station, or a convenience store, etc. in their own backyard as it were, however, those same people unknowingly enjoy the fruits of our labor never knowing the contribution our firms make to their enjoyment, convenience or peace of mind. If your company is not able Shep Smith, Inc. Page 2 of 2 January 10, 2006 to continue operating, the cost of commercial and intuitional construction shall go up precipitously. Select borrow material from suppliers in Moyock, North Carolina must be trucked down many of the same routes your operation uses to access the construction sites in the areas of most growth. Much of this growth area is within 25 miles of your current sand pit location. It truly is a pity those twenty years of hard work on a multitude of people's efforts ends up in the hands of a few people whom have many items to consider of great importance; however, unbeknownst to them this may well be one of the most important items ofthe day to consider. It has always been said that the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" and I recognize the rights of others to voice their opinions for or against this matter. I just hope they realize that too much grease attracts dust, dirt and debris and in a short amount of time that once squeaky wheel has now failed and needs to be replaced. Finding a replacement is often difficult. I know of no location within the confines of the City of Virginia Beach which could be considered in today's environment as an approvable site to provide our city with another resource such as the resource provided currently by your company. With no other location available, or approvable, many of our business fates as well as those of our customers long term, shall be in jeopardy. I look forward with high hopes of a continuing working relationship with your firm for many years to come but take this opportunity now to thank you for the kind service you have provided in the past. Sincerely, SHEP SMITH, INC. Kent A. Mote President .JLIII u1 • I-LU- U . I-IUHIYI . UHIJIUL: UUILUIIYU- IJI !GL JVUUrM 1/ 1 Concrete Contractors January 9, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter to express my support for Bonney Bright Sand Company and Mr. Bonney Bright. I am the President of Bayside Concrete, Inc., a Virginia Beach based commercial concrete contractor as well as a current resident in Virginia Beach. I have known Mr. Bright for 10 years and have been doing business with his company for as long as I have been in business. Mr. Bright is a wellrespected, honest man and a great citizen of the City of Virginia Beach. Iris company has provided me with excellent service and is always willing to stand behind their word. I am currently using Bonney Bright Sand Company on several projects in the city of Virginia Reach and continue to receive excellent service and product. Bonney Bright Sand Company is a Virginia Beach based provider of sand, fill dirt, and topsoil. Most of bis competition in this area is based in North Carolina It is my desire to use locally based suppliers on all of my projects and not have to go to North Carolina Not having Bonney Bright Sand Company would not only hurt my business as far as service and pricing, but it would also have a negative affect on Virginia Beach's economy as well by sending everyone to North Carolina to get their sand. I hope that you can see that Bonney Bright Sand Company is a valuable asset to the City of Virginia Beach. Mr. Bright is a locally based supplier not only to me, but to many contractors across the city and region. He has and continues to provide a great service and I am willing to stand behind him with my support so that he may continue to do so. Respectfully, Todd Butler Bayside Concrete, Inc. President Holland Commerce Center, Suite A-108.468 South Independence Blvd. • Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-490-4960 -P Fax: 757-490-4964 • Class A Contractor #2701 028673A _.. v ..--•.- , • I ah • r �r-vvavotu Jdn lU 'Ub 1606 P. Ol CHESAPEAKE BAY CONTRACTORS,-INC. 2835 CRUSADER CIRCLE P.O. BOX 9708 VIRGINIA BEACH; VIRGINIA 23450 January 10, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: Re: Bonney Bright Farms Chesapeake Bay Contractors, Inc., like many other Virginia Beach construction firms, depends heavily on the materials and services provided by Bonney Bright Farms. Bonney Bright Farms provides a high quality, competitive sand product, which is second to none in the area and is essential to the construction industry in the City of Virginia Beach. Furthermore, the delivery services furnished by Bonney Bright Farms are first rate, prompt and always safely performed. Chesapeake Bay Contractors looks forward to many more years of dealing with Bonney Bright Farms in the City of Virginia Beach. Without question, Bonney Bright Farnxs is a credit to the entire City of Virginia Beach. 4P, m P.E. TELEPHONE (757) 468-4600 .. FAX (757) 468-0087 FROM : NGI FAX NO. : 7572554420 Jan. 09 2006 01:55PM P2 Nansemond Grading, Inc. 1505 .Kings Hwy Suffolk, VA. 23432 757-255-0168 119/06 Bonney Bright Sand Company 5513 Buzzard Neck Rd Virginia Beach, VA 23457-1365 Dear Bonney, This letter is to inform you of the importance of your company and the services your company provides to the construction industry. It is well known fact that suitable building fill in the Hampton Roads area is scarce. Suppliers of good quality fill material are few. There is little hope of finding new sand and even lesser chance of opening a new pit in the near future. 1 am sure you will agree that there are only a few suppliers of building fill and structural fill material in this market. Those suppliers that are operating are having trouble with meeting demands. Losing a supplier of quality material in this market would slow the construction industry down and projects would be compromised. Your service to the constriction industry has been outstanding. Many times Bonney Bright Sand Company has "gone the extra mile" to make a project a success and preformed far and above what was expected. Over the past 18 years, I have depended on Bonney Bright Sand Company to supply building fill materials to my projects. You and your company have always been there when I need you. I look forward to many more years of service and continuing our good working relationship. Sincerely, Jeff Fremeau President Nansemond Grading, Inc. JC11 AU u0 l u 3 GOd p.1 CONCRETEIMASONRY Qbt2�Ii�lA i5 014T StD1�lNAWOfr� January 10, 2006 To Whom It May Concem: Re: BONNIE BRIGHT SAND Considering that the Baillio Sand Pit is almost out of sand, the Bonney Bright pit becomes even more important to our daily business. Should the pit close, our only other source of sand will be in North Carolina or Smithfield. That would be disastrous, considering the long distances. Please consider your decision. Sincerely, Mike Tourault Operations Manager. 1700 Lambert Court • Chesapeake, VA 23320 • (757) 420-3000 • Fax (757) 420-8579 v i, av, a.VVV ii LV a'[aA �V� V'iV RLLV 01^11NIIL. JUXI.V11111 SPRINKLE MASONRY INC. State Registration #9144 tvoewllla�w January 9, 2006 Bonney Bright Sand 5513 Buzzard Neck Rd Virginia Beach VA 23457 Dear Bonney: Sprinkle Masonry, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to tell you how important Bonney Bright Sand is to us as a local masonry contractor. White masonry sand is essential to every project we undertake and it is not available from every pit in the area. You provide a product of excellent quality, delivered on time at a competitive price. That is a much needed service to the local construction industry as a whole. Delivery time and cost is important to us and your location is a factor in the final delivery cost. When we build a project in Newport News or Williamsburg we buy sand from a pit on the Peninsula due to haul costs and delivery time. When we build projects in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, we need a sand pit within a reasonable distance for delivery. There are only two (2) sand pits in Virginia Beach that provide the quality sand we need and Bonney Bright is one of the two. If there were only one (1) pit in Virginia Beach to provide sand to all the masonry contractors on the Southside, we would all be waiting in a very long line to get the product we need and we would be paying the price dictated by the sole provider with no competition. That is certainly not acceptable to us. As a very satisfied customer of Bonney Bright Sand, we hope we can depend on your continued service to Sprinkle Masonry, Inc. and the local construction community for a very long time. Sincerely, SPRINKLE MASONRY, INC. Robert F. Hedrick Chairman & CEO RFH/bf 1030 Rudtan Blvd. • Chesapeake, VA 23324-3646 • (757) 545-8435 • FAX (757) 545-4228 .J 10TI %J-7 UO UT:.311P P.1 TIDEWATER UTILITY CONSTRUCTION, INC. 6052 Providence Road, Suite 204 Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3$16 .Tel: (757) 671-908o Fax: (757) 671-1213 Email: main(@tucinc.hrcoxmail.com January 9, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: RE: Bonney Bright Sand Company 5513 Buzzard Neck Road Virginia Beach, VA 23457-1365 I understand that some complaints have been registered with the City of Virginia Beach regarding operation of the Bonney Bright Sand Pit located on the Virginia Beacb/North Carolina line. My company has purchased select fill material from Mr. Bright for many years. Most of the material was purchased for City of Virginia Beach projects, including Princess Anne Plaza, Section 2, Phase TV Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation, CIP 6-938, Bid # PUCN-6-0010, which is planned to start on January 23"'. Mr. Jeffrey Layne, P.E. is the project manager for the City. If the Bonney Bright Sand Company pit was closed by the City, it would impact the above mentioned project along with any future jobs bid for City of Virginia Beach work. Use of a pit further away would raise our cost of purchasing fill material. We hope that Mr. Bright will not be forced to close his sand pit. Sincerely, I 6& Lind ergh Hot President LBH/m Water, Sewer & Storm Drain Utility Construction vniv. 7,LVVU 't•L)rIVI VVILIVIIN IIVI- NU.W3 N. 1 w11-411K9 INC. 1736 VIRGINIA BEACH 1PLVD., STD 200 VIRGINU I IfACI 9 VA 2345,1 (757) 422-0122 (757) 422- 038 FAX January 9, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: The following shall serve as our sincere concern relative to the possible closing of the Bonney Bright sand pit, Needless to say, we have been dealing with Bonney Bright for several years and have become quite dependent upon their sand and materials that are needed for our construction sites. It would be a substantial inconvenience to our company if, indeed, the clesin"f-the-sand-pit-d—place.-yam at Wi mik, Inc. certainly hope that the possibility of a closure does not turn into a reality. WILMIK, INC. Michael R. Gingerich President MRG/twe FROM : Tri City Contractors Inc FAX NO. : 757 4217549 Jan. 10 2006 12:05PM P2 CONTRACTORS INC. January 10, 2006 To whom this may concern; Tri City Contractors, Inc, has purchased most of the sand required for many of our Virginia Beach and Chesapeake projects since our Company began in 1999. Bonney Bright Sand Company has been our preferred provider of these materials primarily because of their convenient location. It would truly be detrimental to our Company should we be unable to purchase from Bonney Bright as it would not only result in less productivity but an increase in fuel costs as well. Having to travel greater distances, possibly to North Carolina, to buy these materials, as I see it, would have an ill effect on all area contractors. Thank you for your time and consideration. with regards,, qph C- Adkins President/Owner Phone: 421-9298 P.O- Box 16099 • Chesapeake, VA 23328 Fax. 421-7549 Back Bay Construction, Inc. 3225 Mansfield Lane Virginia Beach, VA 23457 January 10, 2006 To Whom It May Concern, Back Bay Construction has been purchasing sand from Bonnie Bright Sand since 1997. They are absolutely essential to the viability of our business. This is true with most of the construction companies in the Virginia Beach and Chesapeake area. Their ability to quickly respond to our requests for material delivery is unequaled and contributes greatly to our business success. The product they provide from their southern Virginia Beach sand pit is a required item for almost all construction sights in the area. Any further constrictions upon the operation of Bonnie Bright Sand will cause an undo burden on the construction industry and the individual home builders. This situation is analogous to the NAS Oceana state of affairs, both of which are complaint driven. Both of these entities are substantial parts of our locale's economic engine. For that reason alone, we as a community need to work with these employers, not confront them due to pressure from a narrowly focused interest group. As with NAS Oceana, we need to be careful what we ask of our local employers, because the outcome could become a series of detrimental unintended consequences. Bonnie Bright Sand is a good citizen of Virginia Beach's business community. They provide substantial jobs, tax revenue, and fuel the growth of Virginia Beach. I am concerned as a business man in Virginia Beach as to how this matter will be decided. Virginia Beach has always been "business friendly." I hope that will continue. Sincerely, ife-aw 1- hA�Zc oseph E. Nicolato President Back Bay Construction, Inc. - ; .ran-iu-Ob 4:56PM; Page 2/2 Ltl GVAUTY ENTERPRISES USA INC. January 9, 2006 City of Virginia Beach Planning Commission 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456-9013 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is intended to lend support and express our appreciation for the services of the Bonnie Bright Sand Company in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. has relied on the services of Bonnie Bright for a number of years to successfully complete numerous construction projects throughout the Hampton Roads area. Their outstanding service has been a fundamental component for our success. The availability of high quality earth materials is a key factor for the construction business in this area of Virginia. Unfortunately, we continue to face the problem of having fewer and fewer sources for suitable materials in our area. The availability and costs of such materials directly affect not only the economics of the local construction industry, but also the financial growth of the Community. In that the Bonnie Bright Sand Company has consistently provided these necessary materials, they have become an integral part of the construction industry's wellbeing. Quality Enterprises has relied on Bonnie Bright not only for the needed earth materials, but also for dependable delivery services and their reliable business office operations. We consider this vendor as a vital resource for our company's work requirements. Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., a general contractor based and working in the local area for over 34 years, has greatly valued its business relationship with the Bonnie Bright sand pit. We feel that the continuation of this relationship is of paramount importance. We hope that this letter will be received and carefully considered as an endorsement of Mr. Bright's business operations, as it does affect our business endeavors throughout the Virginia Beach area as well. Sincerely, QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC, llj�/Zg 4�� Ronald E. Augustin, P.G. Project Manager 208 Timern Court .3891 Mannix Drive, Suite 216 3UU-A Piedmont Cuurt Chesapeake. VA 233?0 Naples, FL 341 14-5406 Atianw, UA 30340 )757) 548 UUU 1239) 43 S-/200 (678) 728 0038 Fax )757) 5482600 Fax (739) 4.3.S 7202 Fix (678) 728-0039 --I- nay VC31 I Uxlt 10002 .BACK BAY r" `Ga/aol Calavaty Solid Concepts, Inc, TIA Back Bay General Contracting 3460 Chandler Creek Road Virginia Beach VA 23453 Phone 757-427-9800 Fax 757-427-0054 Bonnie Bright Sand Company is a valuable supplier to our company. They deliver Prompt courteous service in which it is a pleasure to do business. Back Bay General Contracting is a Virginia Beach business that uses suppliers in the Vitginia Beach Area. We do not want to do business in North Carolina; the transportation fees would greatly increase our costs. We prefer to do business locally in Virginia Beach, Bonnie Bright has been a valuable company to our business and we look forward to doing business with them for years to come. Sincerely, Michael D. Perry President Back Bay General Contracting - �ii-ti70-1JJ1 Jan 10.06 14:39 No.008 P.02 A �rffo DepFORD ERIDEVELOPER COMPANIES, INC. 2712 (C)UIHERN BOIJLI-VARI) Gplk 100 VIRGINIAFJFACH, VIRGINIA2:14S2 Ih D'HONE: 757/340'.D4, W: 7557i498 1.131 January 10.2006 City of Virginia Beach To Whom It May Concern: We have recently been informed thaf the sand pit owned by Bonney Bright Sand Co. is in jeopardy of being shut down. As a builder and developer in this area, I feel it would be detrimental to my production if this were to happen. DeFord Companies, Inc. has dealt with Bonney Bright Sand for many years and feel they are an outstanding company that is an asset to the community and the building industry. Thank y()u . x 1 � Robert Ii. DeFord III President Dragas domes Ianuery Iq 2006 To whom it May Cencera, X has came 10 my sttd06on that Bonney Bright is in danger of being sbut down due to problems with the size of door sad pit. Please he advised that it would be detrimental to our business if they were to become incapacitated. Dnips Ham= cilia bavily on the services that Bonney Bright provides. We bave been doing busiam with them for vAq years and gtey have always acted responsibly and honorable. It is my opinion that the coasUmcdon commttnhy in general would be at a loss without them. lbxz* Yua� Vice Ptesidt at Dragas Howe 2249 Sunstatts Coun, Suite to] ♦ Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 ♦ Phone 757496-3200 ♦ Fax 757496-9214 ♦ dragasbomes@yaboo.com 13ISHA F2D _�W EVELOPMENT ORPOi�A'I'ION 2101 Parks Aveauc & e_ lot -Virginia Bcach, VA 23451 (757) 3335750 January 9, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: Bonney Bright Sand Company has been a very important supplier of our companies needs for many years . They have given us good quality materials with prompt service. Loosing them would be a great loss to us as well as our community. We depend on Bonney Bright Sand Company for many development and construction sites. Thank You, Steven Bishard Z d 605E-ES£-LSL d9e:t70 90 60 uer Enlerprcilsle BuyERC/ALA R�$/OEMT■AL 1791 Princess Anne Rd. Virginia Beach,'VA 23456 Phone: (757) 721.-4204 Fax: (757) 721-4205 January 9, 2006 Bonney Bright Sand Company 5513 Buzzard Neck Road Virginia Beach, `✓A 23457 Dear Bonney, I am writing this letter to inform you of the importance of your company. Since my company has been in business (1979), I have depended on your company for all my fill needs. Your company has always gone the extra mile to make sure that all deliveries have been made in a timely manner. Being a general contractor I run into numerous delays due to vendors not being able to ship materials out on time. It is nice to know that when I place an order with your company, I will be sure to get the materials delivered to the job on the sarne day. Your service to my company over the years has been outstanding. I look forward to many more years of service with your company. re , Bert Dail President Enteprise Builders Construction, Inc. JMIY' 1 U-0000 I Ut I U ; U4 HH HbHUUN bU 1 LUtrb t HA NU. r 5193tiJ 1 zy r, UL Asl Edon Builders, Inc. 321 Great Bridge Boulevard/Chesapeake. VA 23320/757 436-3757/Fax 757 436-3124 January 10, 2006 'To Whom It May Concern: Bonney Bright Sand has been.a major supplier for Ashdon Builders, Inc. for many years. They have always shown professionalism with timely deliveries for our job sites. Ashdon Builders greatly depends on the services offered by Bonney Bright Sand. We would lose valuable production time in the. construction of our homes if -we no longer .could receive the services offered by Bonney Bright. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 757.436-3757. . Sincerely, Angela Macey Officer BR:am -- ---- ir:Jl vitamin USA, Inc. 1 P.O2 Chesapeake Bay Homes, Inc. 844 First Colonial Road, Suite 205 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 757.425.8377 January 10, 2006 To Whorn It May Conccrn: We are writing this letter in support of Bonney Bright Sand Company. I am the President of Chcsapcake Bay Horrmcs, inc, a Virginia Beach based residential homcbuilder and developer, as well as a life long resident of Virginia Beach_ Being a local businessman, my preference is always to use local suppliers and companies whenever possible. Bonney Bright has burn that supplier, Cun•enl.ly, I have several projects in various stages of developtllent. in the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake and Bonney Bright provides me with the quality product. I. need to keep my projects going. It would be a great detriment to my company if i had to seek out a new supplier, casting both time and money. Bonney Bright has always Provided my partners and I with the utmost in professionalism and customer service. My business runs smoother because I know that 1 am getting the product I need, when 1 need it, because it comes from it local company. I hope that you will take into account the imponant role that Bonney Bright Sand Company plays in the success of my cc►mparty, many other local companies and in the local economy as a whole. Sincerely, Robert Zirpoli Chesapeake Bay Homes, Inc. President No 15 17 P• 2 u / � u 2 / / cli A z 0 ± e o s ° '§ = u .. om g=/ 2 cd / al '/ ) / k ° ° 2 2 / § cd 0 ° § k q .\ k t o @ 0 § § G _ o S « � ± � d t ¢ k o 0 / A § .E ) "° 2 ) § ± ) © § °Cfi E / C k & /� c 2 C) $n. U E rL b7» / A/ ƒ/.t 'n j � #Z0 13 lZ4 b µT- United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge Currituck National Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 39 316 Marsh Causeway Knotts Island, North Carolina 27950-0039 January 11, 2006 Dear Planning Commission, Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge extends into Virginia Beach and our Visitor Contact Station is located approximately four miles south of the Bright Mine entrance. The refuge has concerns related to the proposed continued operation of the Bonney Bright Sand Pit and an additional mining facility proposed by the applicant that is just across the state line in North Carolina. Much of the concern that the refuge has over this issue is related not only to the applicant's existing mine but also to the new proposal. It appears that the two proposals will physically be connected if permitted in the future. The impacts of the applicant's current and future mining operations do not appear to be fully evaluated based on the limitations of the reviewing authorities respective jurisdictions. The existing mine operation is pumping water into agricultural ditches for potential recharge of local groundwater. The agricultural ditches are supposed to be holding water to allow groundwater recharge and the settling of suspended materials. The water control structures that surround the facility are currently inoperative and do not preclude discharge of water into Back Bay. Waters discharged into Back Bay that have heavy sediment loads will have adverse impacts on the bay. Extensive corrosion has created holes in the water control structures that will require replacement. Due to brackish water conditions, aluminum or galvanized structures should be required in all areas where agriculture ditches exit the property. The applicant should be required to routinely maintain all structures. A settling basin should also be considered since the recharge of groundwater was not the original intent of these agricultural ditches. A settling basin that empties into the ditches would provide additional protection to Back Bay if water control structures were breeched in the future. Princess Anne Road is the predominant access to the refuge. Gravel and debris from the existing operation frequently impact this road. This debris along with large dump trucks travelling this narrow corridor has potential for serious impacts to safety. It is our understanding that the existing operation is limited to 75 round-trip trucks per day, based on the current mining pit limitations. It appears that the North Carolina mine could add up to 200 additional round-trip truck trips daily. That level of truck traffic would equate to more than one truck every three minutes leaving the combined mine area onto Princess Anne Road. That level of heavy traffic would likely adversely affect refuge visitation. The adequacy of the road, load requirements and speed limitations should be reviewed with an understanding of the full extent of all current and proposed mine operations before a final decision is made. The refuge requests that your review consider the combined effects of both the existing operation and the proposed new operation in North Carolina. At a minimum, the applicant should be required to fully meet all current license requirements. After consideration of the cumulative effects of the combined operation, more restrictions may be warranted. In addition, the nature and extent of the connection of the current mine with the proposed North Carolina mine should be evaluated in this review, since that connection would occur within Virginia. There may be an opportunity to work with Mr. Bright and Currituck County to develop an overall operation plan that would reduce concerns over truck traffic and the potential for discharged waters entering into Back Bay. Sincerely, Tim Cooper Refuge Manager cc: Director Currituck County Planning Department Carlson CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Authorizing a Change to a Nonconforming Use on Property Located at 304 C 27th Street, in the Beach District. MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: A Resolution authorizing the Change to a Nonconforming Use for the demolition of an existing garage apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling on property located at 304 C 27th Street (GPIN # 24280056200000). Said parcel contains 4,547 square feet. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH ■ Considerations: The applicant requests approval to demolish an existing garage apartment and to replace it with a single-family dwelling. The garage apartment is located on the same lot as an existing nonconforming duplex on 27th Street on the eastern fringe of the Old Beach Neighborhood. The site is zoned RT-3 Resort Tourist District which does not permit either garage apartments or duplex dwellings. To the east of the site is a 7-11 convenience store, which was built in 1978; to the west of the site is a single-family dwelling. A new duplex dwelling is being proposed for the lot to south. The applicant states that the proposed duplex to the south, combined with the existing 7-11 Convenience Store will dwarf the garage apartment. The applicant is also concerned with the possibility of the structure flooding due to drainage issues in the area. Thus the applicant's desire to replace the garage apartment. The existing garage apartment is approximately 400-square feet in size. It is adjacent to the eastern and southern property lines. The existing duplex on the lot is 1,890-square feet in size, and is four -feet from the western property line and a little over eight -feet from the eastern property line. A wooden deck stretches across the entire front of the duplex and is located one -foot from the front property line. The steps to that deck encroach into the 27th Street right-of-way. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 400-square foot, single -story garage apartment and to replace it with a 2,288-square foot, three-story single- family dwelling with a 390-square foot garage. The applicant also proposes an eight -foot wide driveway along the eastern side of the lot and two parking spaces between the existing duplex and the proposed single-family dwelling. The proposed renovations and existing structure will cover 84% of the lot. JON & TAMMY CARLSON Page 2 of 2 ■ Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of this request. The proposal is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area, the Oceanfront Resort Area Plan or the Oceanfront Resort Area Design Guidelines The Change to a Nonconforming Use for demolition of an existing garage apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling proposal is located just east of the cul-de-sac on 27th Street, which separates the Old Beach neighborhood from the Resort Strip. The recently adopted Oceanfront Resort Area Plan states on page 9, section 3.5, "Single family and duplex residential development are to be consistent with the recommendations provided in the Old Beach Design Guidelines ". The desired housing characteristics found within the Old Beach Design Guidelines identify compatible housing sizes of 1,700 to 2,700 square feet, open porch areas of 160 square feet, building heights of 2 % stories, and the desire for dormers, wall projections, and architectural detailing. This lot is significantly smaller then a typical lot found in the Old Beach neighborhood. The Guidelines and Old Beach Overlay District prohibit impervious cover of more than 60% of the total lot area. The proposed 2,658 square foot single-family dwelling, driveway and parking space, in addition to the existing duplex dwelling, are too large for a 4,500 square foot lot. Approval of this request would result in three (3) dwellings on one lot (of only 4,500 square feet) rather than two (2) dwellings and a garage apartment. The request, therefore, is not appropriate and cannot be supported. As an aside, it must be noted that the drainage concerns of the applicant will likely be resolved by the recently completed Capital Improvement Project, CIP 7- 145. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Location Map Resolution Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial of the request. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City er Mana • g. 1C, � 1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CHANGE TO A 2 NONCONFORMING USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 304 3 C 27TH STREET, IN THE BEACH DISTRICT 4 5 WHEREAS, Jon and Tammy Carlson, (hereinafter the 6 "Applicants"), have made application to the City Council for 7 authorization to demolish a nonconforming garage apartment and 8 replace it with a single-family dwelling, situated on a certain 9 lot or parcel of land having the address of 304 C 27th Street, in 10 the RT-3 Resort Tourist District; and 11 WHEREAS, the said use, garage apartment, is not a permitted 12 use in the RT-3 Resort Tourist District, and the single-family 13 dwelling is also not permitted, as there is already a 14 nonconforming duplex located on the property; and 15 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning 16 Ordinance, the change to a nonconforming use is unlawful in the 17 absence of a resolution of the City Council authorizing such 18 action upon a finding that the proposed use, as changed, will be 19 equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning district 20 than is the existing use; 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 22 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 23 That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed use, 24 as changed, will be equally appropriate to the district as is 25 the existing use. 26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 27 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 28 That the proposed demolition of the Applicants' 29 nonconforming garage apartment and its replacement with a 30 single-family dwelling is hereby authorized. 31 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on the 32 day of February, 2006. CA-9914 OID\Ordres\nonconforming-carlson.doc R-3 February 7, 2006 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: � Planning epartment City Attorney's O ice 2 JON & TAMMY CARLSON Staff Planner: Faith Christie February 14, 2006 City Council Meeting REQUEST: Change to a Nonconforming Use for demolition of an existing garage apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling on the same lot as an existing duplex within a RT-3 Resort Tourist District. •t;• r�Tatm . ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 304 C 27th Street GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24280056200000 6 - BEACH 4,547 square feet The applicant requests approval to demolish an existing SUMMARY OF REQUEST garage apartment and to replace it with a single-family dwelling. The garage apartment is located on the same lot as an existing nonconforming duplex on 27th Street on the eastern fringe of the Old Beach Neighborhood. The site is zoned RT-3 Resort Tourist District which does not permit either garage apartments or duplex dwellings. To the east of the site is a 7- 11 convenience store, which was built in 1978; to the west of the site is a single-family dwelling. A new duplex dwelling is being proposed for the lot to south. The applicant states that the proposed duplex to the south, combined with the existing 7-11 Convenience Store will dwarf the garage apartment. The applicant is also concerned with the possibility of the structure flooding due to drainage issues in the area. Thus the applicant's desire to replace the garage apartment. The existing garage apartment is approximately 400-square feet in size. It is adjacent to the eastern and southern property lines. The existing duplex on the lot is 1,890-square feet in size, and is four -feet from the western property line and a little over eight -feet from the eastern property line. A wooden deck stretches across the entire front of the duplex and is located one -foot from the front property line. The steps to that deck encroach into the 27th Street right-of-way. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 400-square foot, single -story garage apartment and to replace it with a 2,288-square foot, three- story single-family dwelling with a 390-square foot garage. The applicant also proposes an eight -foot wide driveway along the eastern side of the lot and two parking spaces between the existing duplex and the proposed single-family dwelling. The proposed renovations and existing structure will cover 84% of the lot. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A duplex and garage apartment occupy the site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . 27h Street USE AND ZONING: South: . Vacant lot / RT-3 Resort Tourist East: . 7 —11 Convenience Store / RT-3 Resort Tourist West: . Single-family and duplex dwellings / A-12 Apartment NATURAL RESOURCE AND There are no natural resources associated with the site. There could be CULTURAL FEATURES: some cultural significance concerning the structures on the site as the City Real Estate records indicate the structures were built in 1925. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65-70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): 27TH Street terminates with a cul-de-sac in front of this site. WATER and SEWER: This site is connected to City water and sewer. SCHOOLS: School population is not affected by the request. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city COMPREHENSIVE PLAN as the Resort Area, an area planned for resort uses including lodging, retail, entertainment, recreational, cultural, and other uses. The Oceanfront Resort Area Plan and the Oceanfront Resort Area Design Guidelines, which were adopted, December 20, 2005, and amended as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan contain general planning guidance and principles with regard to creating an attractive, wholesome, family resort destination, establishing quality venues and events, and the need to ensure excellence and a quality image in all resort area development. Staff recommends denial of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION request. The proposal is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area, the Oceanfront Resort Area Plan or the Oceanfront Resort Area Design Guidelines The Change to a Nonconforming Use for demolition of an existing garage apartment and construction of a single-family dwelling proposal is located just east of the cul-de-sac on 271h Street, which separates the Old Beach neighborhood from the Resort Strip. The recently adopted Oceanfront Resort Area Plan states on page 9, section 3.5, "Single family and duplex residential development are to be consistent with the recommendations provided in the Old Beach Design Guidelines ". The desired housing characteristics found within the Old Beach Design Guidelines identify compatible housing sizes of 1,700 to 2,700 square feet, open porch areas of 160 square feet, building heights of 2'/2 stories, and the desire for dormers, wall projections, and architectural detailing. This lot is significantly smaller then a typical lot found in the Old Beach neighborhood. The Guidelines and Old Beach Overlay District prohibit impervious cover of more than 60% of the total lot area. The proposed 2,658 square foot single-family dwelling, driveway and parking space, in addition to the existing duplex dwelling, are too large for a 4,500 square foot lot. Approval of this request would result in three (3) dwellings on one lot (of only 4,500 square feet) rather than two (2) dwellings and a garage apartment. The request, therefore, is not appropriate and cannot be supported. As an aside, it must be noted that the drainage concerns of the applicant will likely be resolved by the recently completed Capital Improvement Project, CIP 7-145. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. JON AND TAMMY CARLSON City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 3 2 SP'A`ES:S P.!!3 V4M f ,V EWMED) s�Ac�s Gov TOW � iV$2'45'Lit3"� 9l1 ; , GARAGE j FFE$.0iUj I i o: t:a a 2610-PAC eK,?�IIyL�W. , a adqN :6�6 0 � Y,tz I]Uq 277ii S'�A C,iC� 4r'�+ Cy ]��'a�al xC '} G 9'✓ J�`C �i'] i.' yy����yy� *'1 a,c 2i h CnC t F R f^l«f U J'36 h C�t �Q'1 {.n er i c'dr 6 4�`; 8 Itl r.i LAG f!a'l 9c$15 nr, - fa9r`�� _ 41 C O^LC f -A-7 ,i REt € SINGLE FAMLY DWELLING AT 304 C 27tb.STREET ....� EXHIBIT PROPOSED SITE PLAN JON AND TAMMY CARLSON City Council Meeting of February 14; 2006 Page 5 IRS&IS HJ-'S 00O- NOS-7&V:--) NOf S6" Q WV a� q-.4v3C1s3?J 341 01 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION JON AND TAMMY CARLSON City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 6 1. 10/26/04 Replacement of a Nonconforming Use (Demolish and Approved replace a duplex) 2. 3/24/04 Replacement of a Nonconforming Use (Demolish two Approved multiple -family structures and replace with two single- family dwellings) 4/28/92 Conditional Use Permit (Bungee jumping) Denied 9/12/83 Conditional Use Permit Motel units Denied 3. 4/12/94 Conditional Use Permit (Temporary commercial Approved parking lot 4. 12/17/96 Conversion of a nonconforming use Approved 5. 4/23/96 Conditional Use Permit(Housing for the elder) Approved 6. 1 6/11/02 Expansion of a nonconforming use Approved ZONING HISTORY JON AND TAMMY CARLSON City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 7 DISCLOSURE STATE�=E:NT 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) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) .......... DY/Check here if the applicant is NOT 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 entiv relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ..... . ..... ... ........... El Check here if the property owner is NOT corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & 2 See next page for footnotes ND-n-Con—)rainy DISCLOSURE STATEMENT JON AND TAMMY CAR,LSON City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 8 W I IS SURESTATEMENT W ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES or businesses that have or will provide services with respect 1 use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural ,es, financial services, accounting services, and legal essary) relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one �ectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the irporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of ?.2-3101. s entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than hip, that exists when (i) one business entity has a ast in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in ing owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared tween the business entities. Factors that should be the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship on or substantially the same person own or manage the two or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or .is; or there is otherwise a close working relationship State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. CERTIFICATION. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the Subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. Ac S, Pr4n,. Name Piopel%, Ov.,,nerS+graLire (if d if' eren-1 titan applicant; N.-Ccnknnm,f: Print Name DISCLOSURE STATEMENT JON AND TAMMYCARLSON City Council Meeting of February,14, 20,06 Page 9 Sv R E�YJ i /iFRF w�o� ar FvRT/��R p�v�� �PME�'7- /'t'PPyic /�iio.v5 i3oTN �/1-RG E /tND SM�� � svBM/�TtD FoQ 7'/i'9 / R/�NSiTio N"0�5. TH-J vK /T /S /lti Po R TANT �=a2 TNLs CauNC/L i o /'vSIST' o.0 COAJFdIeM�NC/c To THE C�^iPR�fl6�/S/✓F P�iq�,/ cXCEPr Fo.2 C 4r44.1NG 7/t/A.1/c 7-7't'9P EiV/-1s}uCE YOUR CRED/�j/LJTy W/iN THE �vQ LIG /jND e>7W&I, G odEAAi /NG SOP/ES o.0 REz=olU/.s/6 1 �So i WINK iT A9liY SERVE AS 4 C/SE F✓L EX41/ Pt-C /^� p91'9oN57-R.gr/NOb TNfyT THE C/TY Codivc.'< IS SE.t/oU.S 4800r vrl+01-01A;a .45 You Rts►'oNo -ro 8RRC CG�fAli SS/oN F/N D/NGS. .T N PIREC7- THE DEv4'c.oPER To REWJfC T/fis f}PP�/orJT/o�• S° i H,tr /T MEET,S TffE .�D� OpE,p SPACE 5/nNCER6Ly� 60 7o Ttf� Mr�yo,� ��a /yEiyeEns �F C'/�-r �°o�ti��� �fLON9 EA A).-9 A D alas CSP«FN/tDE �T Vie B19ACH VA A3Y54 02-�3-05 ,��o-18 i PRONE Y3o _ 057) S"BJ-ECT f= B. l y✓ aZ00,6 A—CEiiva AGEWPA AcquES—, Fox l E toN/NG R AS0 /7 SSE/18odtP R-A Sr �lERo& R,D6E PAaPc)z-ri .S Z. L, 4.. C. T AM WRsT/NG To 6-,xPRE5s MY PrPc)sj r✓olu TO T/l/S %tE;E4w'vG REQvES'f Sa 1T5 PRESENT FOAM. TTh`/NK you S/tuuLp .sVPPaaT Tdt C i T y P,-* N^/i ova S Tit FF s R Ec v M M EN D/tT to�v Fait Dc�ut.9''' DjSAPPatNrjCD TNjr OVLY ONE IVEMBEa OF TiYF P�-/}uA+,alD �o�yiy/ss�o•`/ Gow C uRRFD W trN TttEtR RECO/7MEN DiIT/a.v. .Tnj $R/EF✓ THE P!z-oPaSED DE✓E•l-oP1YF-AJ7- DaE�S AJor BEET THE MtNtMuM 3-07 OPEN SPICE Go'►t C¢«ED FOR t.v ESS f}NNE 1RAiv,S'iTioN RRFi9 Gv�DE L/�✓ES. TT' oNLy PRo✓�Ots FOR yl % opEA, 5P#eE-- TH/s/✓e*vs T//&r Iris Od/Ly /icH/Ekl.v6r bF %jiE-r*ASET" AMo vNT, /VR. BovA Don/ H is Sit l o ry it /T /S v/F`/C uc. r To AiCc r 7hW Jro% 6,O&L FaR SAI&Li-/ / R?EGu��rR SNIPED PROPER r/ES , �owEYcRJ 0I7,1 S%,,�IFF /itS TN,*r /r /S fAip PRncT/t fL F-P, TtytS To RE4em T/fE STAND*AD W�yicE S7-11-4- CRE&I-JAI& t/6er ✓A/eYi•-G S/-rtD 8d/l-O/n/G I-oTJ, //1ERErcR46j ,i co Avor rh/A)k 7-IY47 TftE i4PpLl apNT 0.4S DEMOAiSTR-trED THC Nc'ED FOR AA) EXcEpT/ow tAu TH/S cAsE. TN C90N7-PA-5-1 j THE NEARI� r 5'E4-8C),gX p /¢C'AE.S DFvc'-opMENr LvH/CN ctttj_/o raR FFovRTEE.v V*g>,t.u4 5✓.ZE:D LOTS wt9s /�}Qc.E J w �� SvSTe!/�✓tD EFGa�tTS, To MEET �« ar TN'E GvrDE[..t�vE REQvtREMrN7"S• T/fF �E.�fl3on�RD /fCRF.S �PPc./f�'9T�a.v FOR W/ttCH /Vlt. So✓RDo,otJ vAovtDEO LC L REP12FSF'N7071go At 44►?S /fiP o R O ✓Eo s y C/ r r rO LIA.r/Z- /•) vuo y. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification and Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: a) An Ordinance upon Application of Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-20 Residential District on property located at 2817 Seaboard Road (GPINs 24036750380000; 24036647250000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being within the Princess Anne Transition Area, suitable for cluster housing using creative planning and development techniques. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop single-family homes. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE b) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Heron Ridge Properties 11, L.L.C. for property located at 2817 Seaboard Road (GPINs 24036750380000;24036647250000). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE ■ Considerations: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-20 Residential District and develop the site with eight (8) lots. The site is within the Princess Anne area, formerly the Transition Area. The allowable density for the area is one dwelling unit or less per developable acre provided the development meets certain criteria defined within the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5 - Princess Anne. The proffered site plan depicts 8.4 acres with eight (8) lots ranging in sizes from 20,210 square feet to 73,671 square feet. The 73,671 square foot lot surrounds the existing old farmhouse and its facilities and landscape. The lot will remain in private ownership and is not an amenity for the neighborhood or the public. After deducting land area for the proposed right-of-way dedication along Seaboard Road and the interior roadway there are 2.38 acres of open space, or 28 percent of the acreage. The applicant is retaining the cedar tree line along the southern portion of the site and integrating it into the open space area. A 100-foot buffer, as required under the Transition Area policies, is depicted along Seaboard Road. A multi -purpose trail meanders across the front of the site connecting to a Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. Page 2 of 3 proposed trail through the wooded farm road. Berming is proposed adjacent to the right —of-way. Category IV screening is proposed along the rear of proposed Lots 1, 2, and 3. The applicant also proposes an eight (8) foot privacy fence and Category IV screening along the western portion of the site adjacent to the golf maintenance facility and golf course. The site design places the stormwater management facility for the development within the 100 foot wide buffer required by the Transition Area policies. Staff cannot support locating the stormwater management facility in this location. It must be moved to a location outside the buffer. The applicant did not submit any architectural elevations but has proffered that the dwellings will contain no less than 2,500 square feet of floor area, excluding garage, for one-story units, and no less than 2,800 square feet of floor area for units over one-story. Each home shall have a garage for a minimum of two (2) automobiles. The applicant has also proffered that all the residential dwellings constructed on the property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which are no less than 75% brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. These proffers insure that the proposed dwellings are of the same high quality as those in adjacent neighborhoods. The subdivision variance request is for reduced lot width for several of the proposed lots. In order to save the stand of cedar trees along the southern portion of the site staff encouraged the applicant to cluster the lots along the existing driveway to the existing home. By using the configuration of the existing driveway the trees can be saved and used as an amenity in the open space. However this also caused the need for the subdivision variance request for the reduced lot widths. The proposal does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. Development within the Princess Anne / Transition Area is not to be considered as a continuation of the higher density growth existing in the northern urban area of the city, but as a more limited type of growth, with its own development standards suitable to the character of the area. The proposed density for this part of the Transition Area, outside the Interfacility Traffic Area related to NAS Oceana, is one dwelling unit or less per developable acre depending upon the degree to which the proposal meets the Transition Area criteria. This density minimizes the level of impact on existing public infrastructure and avoids the need for higher level and more expensive urban improvements. This is in keeping with the intent of the Green Line in that it ensures that citizens in other parts of the city will not be subsidizing capital improvements to support higher density development in this area. The development must strive for a minimum of 50% open space, which should be used to mask the development from roadways by integrating berms, trees, buffers and trails, and to provide public spaces and recreational opportunities. The proposed development does not meet the criteria defined in the Princess Anne / Transition Area Design Guidelines. The site is 8.41 acres with eight residential lots proposed. The lots vary in size from 20,210 square feet to 73, 671 square feet. The front of the site is to be landscaped with vegetation and berms. Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. Page 3 of 3 Multi -purpose trails are provided for the use of the residents and the neighboring community. However the proposed development does not come close to providing the minimum 50% open space the developer should be striving for in this area. The development could meet the criteria expressed by the Comprehensive Plan; however, two characteristics of the proposal that prevent the criteria from being met: (1) the size of the lot where the old farmhouse is located is set at 73,671 square feet and the lot is locked into the corner of the site and (2) there are seven (7) other lots proposed, ranging from 20,210 square feet to 31,105 square feet. Maintaining a 73,671 square foot lot and then creating seven additional lots totaling 169,643 square feet on this parcel creates a situation in which 303,434 square feet (or 6.9 acres) of the site is tied up in lot area. In other words, 72% of the site area (excluding the roadway dedications) is tied up in lots, leaving very little room for the integration of existing and new spaces and amenities into the development. The key impediment is the 73,671 square foot lot. That lot size is the equivalent of what, in any other plan, would have been three 20,000 square foot lots. In affect, then, the area encumbered by lots on the proffered plan is the equivalent of ten (10) 20,000 squares foot parcels. The desire to maintain a lot over 70,000 square feet around the existing farmhouse, while still trying to add seven more lots over 20,000 square feet in size makes achievement of 50 percent open space on this site impossible. Either the size of the lot around the farmhouse needs to be significantly reduced or two of the lots shown on the plan need to be eliminated. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-1 with 1 abstention to approve the requests as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agenc V lanning DepartmentCity Manager. , � "Ok HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 1, 2 REVISED FOR February 14, 2006 City Council Meeting REQUEST: Herons Ride Properties AG-1 D \ GY'd p crl io% AG-1 Xn-AG-2 \E-D� a. a� v -A AG-1 �l Conditional Zoning Change - AG-7 & AG-2 to R-20 1) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-20 Residential District. 2) 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. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located 2817 Seaboard Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE.- 24036750380000 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 8.41 acres 24036647250000 The applicant proposes to rezone the existing AG-1 and AG-2 SUMMARY OF REQUEST Agricultural District to Conditional R-20 Residential District and develop the site with eight (8) lots. The site is within the Princess Anne area, formerly the Transition Area. The allowable density for the area is one dwelling unit or less per developable acre provided the development meets certain criteria defined within the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5 - Princess Anne. The proffered site plan depicts 8.4 acres with eight (8) lots ranging in sizes from 20,210 square feet to 73,671 square feet. The 73,671 square foot lot surrounds the existing old farmhouse and its facilities and landscape. The lot will remain in private ownership and is not an amenity for the neighborhood or the public. After deducting land area for the proposed right-of-way dedication along Seaboard Road and the interior roadway there are 2.38 acres of open space, or 28 percent of the acreage. The applicant is retaining the cedar tree line along the southern portion of the site and integrating it into the open space area. A 100- foot buffer, as required under the Transition Area policies, is depicted along Seaboard Road. A multi- purpose trail meanders across the front of the site connecting to a proposed trail through the wooded HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 1 farm road. Berming is proposed adjacent to the right —of-way. Category IV screening is proposed along the rear of proposed Lots 1, 2, and 3. The applicant also proposes an eight (8) foot privacy fence and Category IV screening along the western portion of the site adjacent to the golf maintenance facility and golf course. The site design places the stormwater management facility for the development within the 100 foot wide buffer required by the Transition Area policies. Staff cannot support locating the stormwater management facility in this location. It must be moved to a location outside the buffer. The applicant did not submit any architectural elevations but has proffered that the dwellings will contain no less than 2,500 square feet of floor area, excluding garage, for one-story units, and no less than 2,800 square feet of floor area for units over one-story. Each home shall have a garage for a minimum of two (2) automobiles. The applicant has also proffered that all the residential dwellings constructed on the property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which are no less than 75% brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. These proffers insure that the proposed dwellings are of the same high quality as those in adjacent neighborhoods. The subdivision variance request is for reduced lot width for several of the proposed lots. In order to save the stand of cedar trees along the southern portion of the site staff encouraged the applicant to cluster the lots along the existing driveway to the existing home. By using the configuration of the existing driveway the trees can be saved and used as an amenity in the open space. However this also caused the need for the subdivision variance request for the reduced lot widths. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A single-family dwelling and several outbuildings occupy the site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family dwellings / AG-2 Agricultural USE AND ZONING: South: Single-family dwelling / AG-2 Agricultural East: • Seaboard Road • Across Seaboard Road are Single-family dwellings / AG-2 Agricultural West: 0 Golf Course / AG-1 Agricultural NATURAL RESOURCE AND Along the northern portion of the site are several mature trees, shrubs CULTURAL FEATURES: and underbrush. Along the southern portion of the site is a stand of cedar trees, which previously lined the old farm road into the now Heron Ridge Estates subdivision. There are no cultural features associated with the site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 2 MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Seaboard Road in front of this site is a two-lane collector street. There are no projects in the currently adopted Capital Improvement Projects to improve this section of Seaboard Road. The Master Transportation Plan depicts Seaboard Road as a 110-foot width right-of-way with a bikeway. During detailed site plan review a right turn lane on southbound Seaboard Road to the proposed connector road will be required. Additionally right-of-way will be required to be dedicated at the corners of the proposed connector road with Seaboard Road. The proffered site plan depicts 15-foot corner radii at Seaboard Road; this must be increased to a 35-foot radii. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Seaboard Road 2.996 ADT 6,200 ADT Existing Land Use —10 Proposed Land Use 3 - 110 ' Average Daily Trips as defined by the existing single-family dwelling 3 as defined by 8 single-family dwellings WATER: City water does not front the site, but it may be extended for connection purposes provided hydraulic analysis supports the potential demand. There are ten (10) inch city water mains in Heron Ridge Drive and Heron Ridge Lane. Health Department approval is required for private wells. SEWER: The subdivision must connect to city sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station #633 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is a six (6) inch city force main and an eight (8) inch gravity sanitary sewer line in Heron Ridge Road. An eight (8) inch gravity sanitary sewer line exists in Heron Ridge Lane. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Princess Anne / Transition Area. The land use planning policies and principles focus strongly on promoting this area as a well -planned, low density, fiscally sound and desirable destination for people to live, work, and play. "The policies of this Comprehensive Plan are designed to ensure that the Transition Area continues tobe a well -planned area. Employment, mixed use, and residential centers, each with its own open space and trail system, will be clustered along and connected to the public greenway offering a variety of quality home and work environments." (p. 143) The Transition Area Matrix was used to evaluate this proposal. The evaluation indicates that the plan as submitted does not meet the Transition Area policies. HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES 11, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 3 Staff recommends denial of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION request. The proposal does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. Development within the Princess Anne / Transition Area is not to be considered as a continuation of the higher density growth existing in the northern urban area of the city, but as a more limited type of growth, with its own development standards suitable to the character of the area. The proposed density for this part of the Transition Area, outside the Interfacility Traffic Area related to NAS Oceana, is one dwelling unit or less per developable acre depending upon the degree to which the proposal meets the Transition Area criteria. This density minimizes the level of impact on existing public infrastructure and avoids the need for higher level and more expensive urban improvements. This is in keeping with the intent of the Green Line in that it ensures that citizens in other parts of the city will not be subsidizing capital improvements to support higher density development in this area. The development must strive for a minimum of 50% open space, which should be used to mask the development from roadways by integrating berms, trees, buffers and trails, and to provide public spaces and recreational opportunities. The proposed development does not meet the criteria defined in the Princess Anne / Transition Area Design Guidelines. The site is 8.41 acres with eight residential lots proposed. The lots vary in size from 20,210 square feet to 73, 671 square feet. The front of the site is to be landscaped with vegetation and berms. Multi -purpose trails are provided for the use of the residents and the neighboring community. However the proposed development does not come close to providing the minimum 50% open space the developer should be striving for in this area. The development could meet the criteria expressed by the Comprehensive Plan; however, two characteristics of the proposal that prevent the criteria from being met: (1) the size of the lot where the old farmhouse is located is set at 73,671 square feet and the lot is locked into the corner of the site and (2) there are seven (7) other lots proposed, ranging from 20,210 square feet to 31,105 square feet. Maintaining a 73,671 square foot lot and then creating seven additional lots totaling 169,643 square feet on this parcel creates a situation in which 303,434 square feet (or 6.9 acres) of the site is tied up in lot area. In other words, 72% of the site area (excluding the roadway dedications) is tied up in lots, leaving very little room for the integration of existing and new spaces and amenities into the development. The key impediment is the 73,671 square foot lot. That lot size is the equivalent of what, in any other plan, would have been three 20,000 square foot lots. In affect, then, the area encumbered by lots on the proffered plan is the equivalent of ten (10) 20,000 squares foot parcels. The desire to maintain a lot over 70,000 square feet around the existing farmhouse, while still trying to add seven more lots makes achievement of 50 percent open space on this site impossible. Either the size of the lot around the farmhouse needs to be significantly reduced or two of the lots shown on the plan need to be eliminated. Staff cannot recommend approval of this request. The proposed proffers are listed below. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 4 proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the Property is developed it shall be subdivided and landscaped substantially as depicted on the "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OFOAK BREEZE HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES", dated 7/26/05, and prepared by MSA, P.C. ("Concept Plan"), which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. PROFFER 2: Except for the existing dwelling located upon the lot designated 7 5 on the Concept Plan, each of the single family residential dwellings to be constructed shall contain no less than 2500 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage for one-story and no less than 2800 square feet of enclosed living area for dwellings in excess of one-story. Each home shall have a garage for a minimum of two (2) vehicles PROFFER 3: Except for the existing dwelling located upon the lot designated 7- 5 on the Concept Plan, all residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which are no less than 75% brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. PROFFER 4: When the Property is developed, the "DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, CHARGES AND LIENS OF OAK BREEZE", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning, shall be recorded by the Grantors for the purpose of subjecting the Property to the requirements set forth therein. PROFFER 5: The party of the first part recognizes that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted December 2, 2003. In addition to integrating significant open spaces with a low density, high quality, housing component as specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the party of the first part agrees to contribute the sum of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If funds proffered by the party of the first part in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. The party of the first part agrees to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. PROFFER 6: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are generally acceptable; however as noted in the Evaluation section of this report, the site could be developed and meet the Transition Area polices, but the plan as proffered does not. The proffers, therefore, cannot be fully supported. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated July 26, 2005, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 5 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES 11, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 6 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 7 M it f�Y •( G(� N b M o-M� Thsh R 0 till 111h ovow 011Yoey s ]�3 C� �xj o 2 c W o N d Ski a ��0 s yma�� LJ V � VG1 S PROPOSED SITE PLAN HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES Ii, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 8 Me C 1. 1/14/03 Rezoning (AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-20 Residential) Approved 2. 9/18/89 4/20/93 Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) Conditional Use Permit (Single-family dwellings) Denied Approved 9/28/93 Conditional Use Permit (Golf Course) and Subdivision Variance Approved 6/28/94 Conditional Use Permit (Modify and enlarge golf course) Approved 7/8/97 Conditional Use Permit (Golf Course), Subdivision Variance, Rezoning (AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-30 and R-20 Residential) I Approved ZONING HISTORY HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 9 --`S1C`-,rjSURE STATPAIEN7 ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES sa-:,rT.:)7, thQ Cot,! CERTIFICATIONt .. ... ...... HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES 11, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 10 DISCLOSURE Sig TETADN'T ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES CC,*�t:"� .;sc, Lj. nct :r,1z*,'-,,C 11.-, 01 3rcni*C-C.,.z e sl., ry "x., ,C, S "3 -',C; v';,L—i lxc or r� -4 L %i ;z Oo:w,e �§ 2 '�-3 * ', I ,.,al "nat, /* :a�% r N 0 le,'C -,T"J -ou'3 C. r T f Va CERTIFICATION: :,,--i"'v ',�at amd 0'-"J - CJ p . ......... . . .. . ....... ......... HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES 11, L.L.C. City Council Meeting of February 14, 2006 Page 11 Transition Area Matrix Allowable maximum residential density for any rezoning in the Transition Area . under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan is 1 unit per acre. The maximum density can be achieved through adherence to the Evaluative Criteria provided below and further explained in the Design Guidelines for the Transition Area. Each section of the Evaluative Criteria below ties to the Design Guidelines through the graphic icon at the top of the section. For further guidance on the respective section of the Matrix, turn to the page of the Guidelines that has the corresponding graphic icon. Staff will `score' the proposed development for its consistency with the Evaluative Criteria below. The scores are then totaled and the total is `plugged' into the formula below to determine the recommended maximum density for the development. PROJECT: Heron Ridge Properties PROJECT DATE: MATRIX REVIEW DATE: 2/2/2006 Evaluative Criteria Total Comments Natural Resources Degrees to which the project 1.5 preserves and integrates into the overall project the natural resource amenities on the site. Amenity Nature and degree of the 3.3 amenity Design Degree to which the project 2.7 incorporates good design into the project (A) TOTAL: (B) TOTAL / 11 possible points (C) TOTAL / 11 * 0.5 = (D) Line (C) + 0.5 du/acre = (E) Line D * total developable acres (8.4) _ 7.5 0.68 0.34 0.84 du/acre 7 units Transition Area Matrix Page 1 of 7 Line A -- total number of points from the worksheets on the following pages. Line B -- total divided by the total number of possible points, which is 11 Line C --total from Line B multiplied by 0.5, which is the amount between the baseline density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre and the possible 1 dwelling unit per acre (du/ac). Line D --total from Line C added to 0.5 du/ac (the baseline density) to obtain the maximum density for the site. Line E -- total from Line D multiplied by the number of developable acres on the site, thus providing the maximum number of units for the site. % A R" 1) Natural Resources Existing forests, wetlands, meadows, cultivated fields, and related features a) Are natural resources protected? Comments: • Yes, the proposed lots have been located to protect the existing stand of cedar trees along the southern portion of the site, as well as the vegetation located on the northern portion of the site around an old farmhouse. b) Are natural resources integrated into project? Comments: • Somewhat. The stand of cedar trees will be part of the open space for the site and will also contribute to the adjoining neighborhood through the retention of the trees and the re- use of an existing dirt drive as a trail. However, the open space is separated from the proposed lots rather than integrated into the lots. YES X (0 to 1 point) NO (0 points) YES X (0 to 1 point) NO (0 points) NATURAL RESOURCES TOTAL Insert in appropriate box on page 1 Total 0.5 1.5 Transition Area Matrix Page 2 of 7 .:° (2) Amenity A feature that increases the attractiveness or value of the site consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. Total a) Is the amenity, if present, visually or operationally available to those who do not own property in the development? YES X (0 to 1 point) 0.7 Comments: • Yes, a minimum I00-foot buffer along the Seaboard Road right-of-way flows into the open space and trail described above. If the area is developed creatively it will provide a visually attractive amenity for the general public. NO (0 points) b) Does the amenity consist of recreational components? YES X (0 to 1 point) 0.7 Comments: • The depicted open space is generally passive in nature. However, an existing dirt drive will be re -used as a trail that connects the Heron Ridge neighborhood to Seaboard Road. NO (0 points) Transition Area Matrix Page 3 of 7 c) Are improvements made that provide visual or physical access to the natural resources on the site OR are improvements made to create a new amenity to the property? YES X (0 to 1 point) 0'9 Comments: • Somewhat. New trails are shown. NO (0 points) d) Is there connectivity linking any open space and/or amenities between this development and adjacent existing or future developments? YES X (0 to 1 point) 1.0 Comments: • Yes. NO (0 points) AMENITY TOTAL Insert in appropriate box on page 1 3.3 Transition Area Matrix Page 4 of 7 3) Design Creation or execution in an artistic or highly skilled manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. a) Are natural or manmade water features incorporated into the development in a way that they serve as amenities? Comments: • There are no existing water features on the site. • A stormwater management facility is shown at the front of the development, adjacent to Seaboard Road. The pond, however, is located within the 100-foot buffer adjacent to the roadway. The pond must be moved out of this area. b) Is there an attempt to integrate the amenities as an integral part of the overall development? Comments: • There is an attempt to use the existing features of the site (the dirt drive and flanking cedars and the old farmhouse) as amenities. However, integration of all of the features is lacking, primarily due to the following: (1) the fact that the lot where the old farmhouse is located is set at 73,671 square feet and is locked into the corner of the site and (2) there are seven (7) other lots proposed, ranging from 20,210 square feet to 31,105 square feet. Maintaining a 73,671 square foot lot and creating seven additional lots totaling 169,643 square feet creates a situation in which 303,434 square feet (or 6.9 acres) of the site is tied up in lot area. In other words, 72% of the site is tied up in lots, leaving little room for design creativity to integrate existing and new spaces and amenities into the development. The 73,671 sq. ft. lot is the equivalent of three 20, 000 sq. ft. lots. The desire to maintain a lot over 70,000 square feet around the existing farmhouse, while still trying to add seven more lots makes achievement of 50 percent open space impossible,. NEW YES X (0 to 1 point) NO (0 points) YES X (0 to 1 point) NO (0 points) Total 0.3 0.4 Transition Area Matrix Page 5 of 7 c) Does the development retain or create views or scenic vistas that can be seen from the road? YES X (0 to 1 point) 1.0 Comments: • Yes, the development does retain the stand of cedar trees that flank the dirt drive located on the southern side of the site. NO (0 points) d) Is a mixture of lot sizes and the clustering or massing of homes used to achieve a primarily open space development? YES (0 to 1 point) Comments: • No. NO X (0 points) 0 Transition Area Matrix Page 6 of 7 e) Does the development use roadway and "hard infrastructure" that is appropriate for its design? Is it consistent with the vision and recommendations of this area as expressed in YES X (0 to 1 the Comprehensive Plan? point) 1.0 Comments: • The proposed roadway section is appropriate for its design. NO (0 points) DESIGN TOTAL 2.7 Insert in appropriate box on page 1 Transition Area Matrix Page 7 of 7 Item # 1 & 2 Heron Ridge Properties 11, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Subdivision Variance 2817 Seaboard Road District 7 Princess Anne December 14, 2005 REGULAR Dorothy Wood: I'll turn it over to Mr. Joe Strange, our Secretary to call the first item Joseph Strange: The first items are Items #1 & 2, Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. An Ordinance upon Application of Heron Ridge Properties H, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District on property located at 2817 Seaboard Road and an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance for property located at 2817 Seaboard Road, District 7, Princess Anne with six proffers. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Madame Chair, for the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicants and this property has been assembled by the developers of the Heron Ridge Golf Course. Mr. Broyles, and his partners, and it's a 2- acre assemblage. It's a two parcel assemble 8.41 acres on the west side of Seaboard Road just north of the Estate of Heron Ridge. A substantial portion of the property is owned by Mr. & Mrs. Weddle, whose home is on the property and is going to remain as one of the proposed eight lots of the subdivision. The property adjoins the maintenance facility for the golf course and the golf course itself to the west, there are some rural residential homes along Seaboard Road that have been there for years on lots under three -acres in size. We have a beautiful tree line driveway here, which we are going to convert to a trail. The proposed development because it is a small site makes it difficult, as everyone understood, when we did the Design Guidelines for the Transition Area that these small infill sites would be difficult and this is the case here. We originally had talked about bringing this in as a road but that would have caused these beautiful trees to come down so the property has been designed with a road coming in here on this little short cul-de- sac and clustering the lots on the northern side of the property. The lots vary in size. We have preserved this area to the south as open space as well as the Transition Area or Princess Anne buffer along Seaboard Road created the variances for the lots in the rear, in order to reduce the size of the street and which are consistent with our guidelines. The only issue that I am aware of that exists here is one of eight lots versus seven. And eight lots are consistent with the one unit per acre. Where the issue arises on small properties is where our goal. I believe it is written as a goal to strive for 50 percent open space. Any small properties where you have to put a road in it, makes it virtually impossible to do that. And, let me also point out that we are designing these home sites and the proffers Item # 1 & 2 Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. Page 2 so that the homes built on these lots will be consistent with those at Heron Ridge. These are actually the same proffers as far as the size of the homes and the architectural requirements as exist in the adjacent Heron Ridge neighborhood. It is obviously a tremendous amount of open space that is already there. With the golf course, with the Heron Ridge community and we think we created a functional open space here that connects through with the trail. It goes into Heron Ridge and we believe the only equitable way to deal with these small infill properties where we actually design this one in a manner that was suggested or recommended to us by the staff is to provide additional monies for open space acquisition of a larger scale. We have done that with our proffers. We proffered $1,500 per unit, which is more than has ever been proffered in any other in the Transition Area development. I did mention that the property is not in an AICUZ area so we don't have that problem or that issue here. What we think makes the most sense and because of the suggested goal is to provide for additional funds for the City to require more useful open space in areas where it is more necessary than in this particular location where we are adjacent to some open space. We are meeting all of the other criteria. We are not adverse to proffering additional funds over and above what is already in our proffers if that will help to make it equitable in terms of what we are trying to achieve and looking at what we have here with a small infill piece of property. Last thing that I will mention is that we have no problem whatsoever adding a proffer that we will provide the required buffer in the agricultural area from the Hartley's property to the north. The Hartley's are wonderful people. I've known them for quite a while. We're certainly more than happy to provide that proffered change as well. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Dorothy Wood: Any questions for Eddie? Ron. Ronald Ripley: What looks like to be a trail does that connect to the golf course community? Eddie Bourdon: This used to be a driveway coming into the farm behind it. This connects it. I don't know if you have the aerial. There is actually a drive aisle coming down to the maintenance facility on the west, right through here. This connects all the way through to Heron Ridge. Ronald Ripley: So a pedestrian can walk through? Eddie Bourdon: The trail would encumber all the way through and then out on to Seaboard Road. Hopefully and eventually a means will be had to get across to the east. Ronald Ripley: Where is the Hartley's property? Eddie Bourdon: It's the property to the north right here. Ronald Ripley: What kind of buffer would you put in? Item # 1 & 2 Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. Page 3 Eddie Bourdon: The required buffer under the Agricultural Zoning would be a, I think it's a 50 foot area that you have to have buffered with low vegetation adjacent to it and as high you can back bone it. Ronald Ripley: You mentioned additional money that you might be willing to proffer. Did you consider what that would be? Eddie Bourdon: We don't have a problem say $25,000 as a total amount proffered towards acquiring open space elsewhere to make up for the slight short problem of the matrix. The reason for the shortfall is primarily because of the small nature of the site. I think we had originally proffered 1,500, which would be close to doubling what we proffered already. Actually we would be doubling it. The most I ever had a client proffer for open space acquisition and Transition Area was $750.00 a unit, which is not a requirement. We've done that in cases where there was already 50 percent open space of a larger project. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Din. William Din: Mr. Bourdon, I guess one of the concerns that I heard expressed to me was the quality of the houses that will be built on this property. There are no elevations provided or anything like that other than this one proffer. Why aren't elevations provided on this issue? Eddie Bourdon: The proffers are identical to the proffers that we used with Heron Ridge. The house that will be built here will the same quality, the same type of homes that were built in Heron Ridge, which the applicants, as I said are the developers of the golf course at Heron Ridge and the actual development of the homes themselves were done by number of different builders pursuant to the very same proffers. They will be identical to the houses in Heron Ridge in terms of their size and their architectural features and building materials. That is the same proffer. We can go out and take pictures of those houses at Heron Ridge and give you those. That is what the proffer is what I'm saying. William Din: This piece of property is not associated with the Heron Ridge development. Correct? Eddie Bourdon: No. It will be in association with. We will have to approve the plans. I'm sorry if that is what you're asking. The plans will have to be approved by the developer as being consistent with the proffers, which is 75 percent brick, and the size of the homes. William Din: I'm finished. Ronald Ripley: A point of clarification. You said the proposed adjusted proffer is $25,000 total. Is that what you said? Item # 1 & 2 Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. Page 4 Eddie Bourdon: Yes. That would be little over $3,000 per unit. We will be happy to revise the proffer to increase the amount so as to provide funds that require open space. I do think that in this location we certainly have significant open space provided for. Dorothy Wood: $25,000 is good. Eddie, answer any questions after the next speaker please? Thank you. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition we have Laura Sisino. Dorothy Wood: Hello and welcome. Laura Sisino: Hi. Thank you for listening to me today. My name is Laura Sisino. I reside at 2821 Seaboard Road, which backs up to the proposed plan for the property. Dorothy Wood: Would you show us your property? There is a pointer right there. Laura Sisino: This house right there is my property. Dorothy Wood: Okay. Thank you. Laura Sisino: I moved to the small farmhouse with rural charm and openness. It is my sincere wish to preserve the qualities and value in this neighborhood. By doing so I suggest that we keep the open space desire at the minimum of 50 percent as suggested in the guidelines of the Princess Anne Transition Area. With the current at 41 percent of open space, I feel it is not suitable to the character of this area. The layout of the current plan does not allow for each dwelling to maximize the views of the open space. On Lot 5 exists a beautiful historical home with some very old trees next to the farmland. The back end of my lot is only 25 feet deep. And, the dwelling of such proportions that is proposed to be built on Lot 6 between my residence and Lot 5, I feel that the historical home and my house would not be in keeping with the integrity and the character of this area. I have spoken with the local realtor and I'm concerned because I was informed that if in fact a home is built on Lot 6, it would more likely decrease the value of my home as it will more than likely be close enough to tower over my home. However, if Lot 6 does remain, I would request because of the odd shape of my lot and its very shallow, I would request that consideration be made for several more feet. The back of my home and allow for me to have more open space. I hope also that an eight -foot fence or a buffer zone could be considered for me as well as the farmland. I hope we can continue to shape this area and provide a clear vision that will respect its past while we plan for its future and provide the quality that this area deserves. I hope that the Commission understands that I speak for my part that I wish to see this area remain true to its character. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Would you please answer any questions if we have any? We don't have any. Thank you so much. Item # 1 & 2 Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. Page 5 Laura Sisino: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon. Would you like to say a few words in rebuttal? Eddie Bourdon: Just a few words. We have, in fact, for the Widdle's benefit, have tried to preserve their home. That is why their lot is carved out with their existing home that is much larger than the others. We would be happy to plant a buffer along the boundary here to the ladies property. Dorothy Wood: Just like she requested Eddie? Eddie Bourdon: We don't have any problem with that. We'll be happy to do that. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Donald Horsley: I have a question for Mr. Scott. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Donald Horsley: Bob, this 50-foot buffer between the agricultural land can that be counted as open space? Robert Scott: If it is restricted as to use and made available to all the people that are out there, I'm not quite sure how that would configure. Donald Horsley: That wouldn't work? Robert Scott: To us, there is a win -win situation here. This is not really that hard of a problem. Mr. Bourdon makes some good points. But I think the speaker made some good points as well. First of all there is the issue of the Transition Area Guidelines, which are reasonable and universally applied throughout this area. It is not hard to go from 41 percent to 50 percent and meet the basic minimums. The Planning Staff can show how to do it. It can be laid out to meet that guideline. I would suggest that this property needs to be developed much that has been proposed by the applicant but with some minor adjustments that brings it in to compliance with the guidelines. Perhaps to a little bit better job of taking care of the concerns of the residents nearby. I think it is pretty easy to do. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Perhaps if we voted on it today and passed it on? Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: I was simply going to say we have had good dialogue with the staff and have had extensive dialogue and would be happy to continue to do so. I think by preserving the Widdle's existing structure and the size of that lot is also a contributor to Item # 1 & 2 Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. Page 6 the small short falls. I'll be more than happy to work with Mr. Scott and his staff between now and City Council. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. We still want the $25,000 though Eddie. Eddie Bourdon: We've been amenable to that because we understand the small nature of the sites to take it away to make equitable. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Mr. Scott, does that seem to be alright with you? Robert Scott: It's alright with us if we work toward the goal of meeting the basic minimums. I think my staff has gone above and beyond the call of duty in actually doing some design work on this property. We're willing to continue to do that because I think the speaker that came up from the adjoining property does make some pretty good points. I think it's to meet those concerns. We're look forward to the opportunity to continue that discussion. Dorothy Wood: As we all mentioned this morning, Mr. Scott we're very lucky to have you and your staff. We all appreciate you. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott, does that mean reconfigure the open space somehow? Robert Scott: It might be to reconfigure it and slightly increase it. I think it would be a good thing to be able to say that this application met the basic requirements of the area. And, I think we need to do it. I know there are some obligations based on the contract that has been described to us and we respect them. I know we have to work around that. We're willing to do that. But if necessary, a few things need to be changed around. Incidentally, we're not interested in having a loss of lots out here. Eight versus seven if you can do it right. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Do we have a vote? William Din: I think the write up by the staff recommends a denial of this application because of the lack of 50 percent open space. Even though that is just a guideline, I think we should stay true to that guideline. I would like to see something more positive or concrete in the way of making these changes so that when we meet that 50 percent either that or defer this item, but I would not prefer this, and I don't think I will support approving this item because of that. I would strongly recommend to us that 50 percent is an affordable issue here. And I think based upon Mr. Scott's statements that this thing can work out and establish and continue that 50 percent guideline we should try to do that. So, unless we are deferring this item or something more concrete is put in here, a proffer Item #1 & 2 Heron Ridge Properties 11, L.L.C. Page 7 or some sort, I don't know if that is proper or not? I cannot support for approval at this time. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Knight. Barry Knight: I see the applicant has done a couple of things. He's assembled some properties albeit small properties but he has assembled properties, which is what we want. And, he has made some move to try to protect the agricultural side, which is in our code but he's done that and he's agreeable to doing that. Mr. Scott said he didn't mind the eight lots and I think eight lots is in keeping with Heron Ridge, which is going to the adjacent property owners, are going to be a good consideration. Sometimes on these Transition Area Guidelines the guidelines don't apply to all pieces of property particularly the smaller parcels of property. We're out of compliance on the recommendation of open space by 9 percent from 41 percent to 50 percent. And, he is going to proffer $25,000 to put into open space fund to purchase open space, hopefully in the general area but for some more open space. I think I would like to make a motion to pass this on with the understanding that he is going to get eight lots. It's going to conceptual as to this. The $25,000 proffer but also the understanding to get with staff and go to Council and hopefully that 41 percent can be uplifted. He may not be able to make the 50 percent but it can be uplifted with consideration of $25,000 proffered open space. I'll put that in a way of a motion. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. A motion by Barry Knight and seconded by John Waller to approve the application. Robert Miller: Madame Chair? Dorothy Wood: Yes Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I need to abstain. My firm is working on the project. Dorothy Wood: We appreciate it Mr. Miller. Are there any comments before we vote? Okay. AYE 8 NAY 1 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN NAY HORLSEY AYE KATSIAS ABSENT KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABS RIPLEY AYE Item # 1 & 2 Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. Page 8 STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote 8-1, with the abstention so noted, the application for Heron Ridge Properties has been approved. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. 7> TEE �/iYo,e �,vv MEiyeE�zs of Cirr G°DL�+c,L FROM. J EANARD ByRNE alas r.SfL*N,*rDE 0T FEB 3 2006 Vie 6EACt1 VA A 3 Y56 Pit DN0 Y30 - OS%/ FL��:t SO 8 J-EE[T FEB, / t f/ 01004 AGEi iNa A G EWPA Ag-gUESl Fax /TFIe7oN/NG 0) A,?17 SE,fBoAao ko Sr 14ER0& RIDGE PRaPERT/t:S -V, L, c.. C. S AM wjetrl v - To EXPRESS MY oPPes, r/oM TD TN/S A-retlr/"G RJl?VEST sa XT5 PRESENT FORM, TTh`/VK you .5/tvuzb ,SvpPoaT- TWt CtTy P`ANn//NG S74Ff'S DEN/At . 7,0�Al pt5 APPoi N rED TNAT DAILY DAZE /�EMBEI¢ o? f ,yE PLd1 NNI AJ& 67 6"1S.i/aA1 GoNCvRRED WiTil 70CIA RE"GoMMENDilTio�1, .Tn/ 8 Ft /E F/ THE PRoposeo PCV t OPAf F�vT DoEs Nor MEE r l HE M1tj1Mw1-i Jr0 °Jo OPEwJ SPICE GoNc CtLLED FOR /A✓ 7-/tE FR1#jcEss ANNE 1R�a�vtiTion, /9RF,9 Gv/DE L/A/ES. 1'T- oNLy P,Qa✓IDES Folk L/1 % OFE,v SP4CE. TH/.sTHifr it,s oA/'-Y AcH/Eyia6- $C % Of -rAg T*46ET" /tiIR. BouRDOM Hfs S,t/D TftAr /T /S D/fr/cvcT To OiCEr 7;otF 5D70 GO&L FoR SMAt[./ i RREcv�.�rR S!f/tPED PROPER r/E„S , f%wEvrRJ �,TY SrrrFF 1145 ;f/igT ♦T /S PRncrif AL FOR Ty/S DE✓ELvPER To REACH r#E Sr^VDgaD WH/tE Sr/t,L- CRF-&F' ✓G E/6,tr ✓AI¢Y.,ma 5/etD $d/-O/n/G LoTJ, %NE/PEFORE/ T co AvO?- ry/AJK 7-,#-17 T/iE 4PPL1c/4NT HqS DE11eN57-RltrE0 THE AJi5EEO FOA ,¢iv ExcEP rio N ,N TN,S CASE. TN COA%TR^rsT/ THE -JEARa , SE?$c)RR,D 19e AES DEvE,LoPMENT wH/CN C/rttL D TOR Fo,1RrEEwj 1/*Ay l NG SIZED LOTS L f!S /gQLE� W SUS TM/NOD Ei,CaaTS/ To MEET A-4L Gr TffF Gv�pEu�vE REQv,REMENTS. TffF �Ew�l3ow1R0 /fCRF.S /;PPuf�9T/a�v FOR W/t,CH /VA. 8D✓aDOA✓ pRovrOEO LEGr�L j2EPRl SEN7/�T/o � w�1S If f f R O ✓60 6Y C 17-Y CO VAeiL, 141 o2.00 y, Sv R E`Y� j /tERF w/zL tat= F��T/��R ��✓��- ���i�N /`tPPL�c �rioNs/ /30TN �-fYRG 6 /tND S�iA L � S�BM/r FpR TfiE / RAAisiT/o N � ow1� • � TH"J UK / �"/S /M PO R T�^�r 1=02 TNLS COVNC/L To /405/57- O.V CoNFoRM13,NGE TO TyE C4110?aLsH"bNS/✓F PL-AN EXCEPT FoR GoJ�iPrc,c.iit/G RE.9So,us, .1 7'/t/�k Tft-9T T/f/S PoLlGY w/LL Env/�ftNCE YouR CRED/�j/�JTy Lt//Tff 7,A)E PV8 LlG /9ND vT/t�/� GO✓E/2N/NG t300>E,S o.0 RE-2aA✓iNG �SSdICJ, 1 14-1.So TMflNK jT /lli9Y SERE R-S A VSEF✓L EX�/yP'-G- /n.. pE1hoN57-R97-/A/G T//AT THE tf/TY Cu✓welt iS SE.tiou,S 4,6ciar V10/f01-DING COMM.;!"MtNTS AS YDu R,=SPo•JD To &R oiC CGIiM1SS/oN F/Aj D/NG.S, 'TN $vn�MARY/ �RE�o�MAFAJD 7-1%/97- C/TY L'otJ.vc"C P/RFCT 'rNC IJE�4LopEJ2 To REvtsE TiS�/s /}PPS/c,fT/vac+ Sc TWIT /T /t'/EET,S THE J~D� OPEA. S'POelr RE4v/RE�IVC-uT, S/NCER�LY/ 2921 51 Roa W , VA 234s6 Phone 757-689 2600 fax 757-689 2901 December 12, 2005 To City of Virginia Beach, Planning Department Re: Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C. Dear Committee: I moved to 2821 Seaboard Road in September 2003 to a small farmhouse with rural charm and openness. My neighbors appear to also enjoy, appreciate and wish to preserve the qualities I value in this wonderful area. Since then, one neighbor has elected to sell eight acres adjoining my property for development. Although I understand the world moves forward- all things change and land will be developed- it is my sincere wish to minimize the effects of development on my rural property and lifestyle investment. My home will easily be swallowed up by the proximity of the much larger homes planned for development and the openness of the locale will be changed. The plan as it exists will preserve LESS THAN fifty percent of the open land, a logical minimum in this rural -feeling neighborhood. Another concern is that my home is placed near the back of the lot facing Seaboard and any new construction will likely be close enough to tower over my home. This would likely decrease my property value and disrupt my quality of life. Although a new home will certainly comply with the minimum distance between homes, I appeal for the maximum reasonable distance from my small home. The current plan calls for eight homes where seven I believe would preserve the 50 percent open space desired and offer an opportunity to not build directly behind my home. Because my lot is an odd shape, the west end could be squared by adding ten to twenty feet. I offer this also as an alternative to building "too" close to my smaller home. A tree line/fence border is planned on property line facing the golf course. A tree line/fence border adjacent my property (with the squared lot addition) would also be favorable. I encourage you to consider that Seaboard residents do not want the concrete of Los Angeles, and prefer development that balances the old with the new. I encourage you to pursue a minimal infringement on my property and minimum infringement on the natural charm and splendor of this area of Virginia Beach. In closing, it is my desire to preserve the character of my old home: a three-dimensional place where people live, old trees cast pleasing shade and the "feel' is decidedly idyllic. This is not merely a rectangle in a plot on a piece of city paper. I am asking that the changes to come have minimal impact on my small slice of the American pie. Thank you. Laura Sisino N U O .Cl) O i O Y T U 0 CIO a .Q ai 0 a 0 (a CL O 0 c i 0 co CIS O a) -0-0 N 0 U) TT N co N N U f� • — y 2 4 CF BUR NPZ��N In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6299 TO: Leslie L. Lille;��Pvzz- y FROM: B. Kay Wilson CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: January 30, 2006 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Heron Ridge Properties 11, L.L.C. The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard bythe City Council on February 14, 2006. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated July 26, 2005, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW/ks Enclosure 'cc: _ Kathleen Hassen PREPARED BY: . • SYK£S. BOURDON. AR£RN & LEVY. P.C. HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company WILLIAM E. WEDDLE and JEAN RAY WEDDLE, husband and wife HERON RIDGE GOLF CLUB, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 26th day of July, 2005, by and between HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES II, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part; WILLIAM E. WEDDLE and JEAN RAY WEDDLE, husband and wife, Grantors, parties of the second part; HERON RIDGE GOLF CLUB, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, parry of the third part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the fourth part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of a certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 7.56 acres which is more particularly described as Parcel 1 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with Parcel 2 is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 0.85 acres which is more particularly described as Parcel 2 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which parcel along with Parcel 1 is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part as contract purchaser of the Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-20; and GPIN: 2403-67-5038 2403-66-4725 1 PREPARED BY: SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY. P.C. WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the R- 20 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed it shall be subdivided and landscaped substantially as depicted on the "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT 2 PREPARED BY. 1�! SYKES. ROURDON. M AHERN & LEVY. P.0 PLAN OF OAK BREEZE FOR HERON RIDGE PROPERTIES", dated 07/26/05, and prepared by MSA, P.C. ("Concept Plan"), which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 2. Except for the existing dwelling located upon the lot designated 5 on the Concept Plan, each of the single family residential dwellings to be constructed shall contain no less than 2500 square feet of enclosed living area, excluding garage for one-story and no less than 2800 square feet of enclosed living area for dwellings in excess of one-story. Each home shall have a garage for a minimum of two (2) vehicles. 3. Except for the existing dwelling located on the lot designated 5 on the Concept Plan, all residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which are no less than 75% brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. 4. When the Property is developed, the "DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, CHARGES AND LIENS OF OAK BREEZE", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning, shall be recorded by the Grantors for the purpose of subjecting the Property to the requirements set forth therein. 5. The party of the first part recognizes that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on December 2, 2003. In addition to integrating significant open spaces with a low density, high quality, housing component as specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the party of the first part agrees to contribute the sum of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the party of the first part in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. The M PREPARED BY: SYKES, ROURDON. M AHERN & LEVY, P.C. party of the first part agrees to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. 6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the 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; PREPARED BY: SYY£S. BOURDON. ® AHERN & L£VY. P.C. (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantors and the Grantee. 5 WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: cation. T Managed ent, Inc., a Virginia Ma kdi'ne Member a , Vice STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of July, 2005, by Michael E. Barney, Vice President of M & T Management, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Managing Member of Heron Ridge Properties II, L.L.C., a Virginia corporation. tary Public My Commission Expires: p �J 1.1 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTORS: , (SEAL) William E. Weddle L�l X - (SEAL) Jean Ray ddle STATE OF VIRGINIA, CITY OF V n a &"t , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2 -i _ day of July, 2005, by William E. Weddle and Jean Ray Weddle, husband and wife. Not Public My Commission Expires: 1- �:'k) - Zooj WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: Heron Ridge Golf Club, L.C., a Virginia limited liabVpany By: _(SEAL) ing Mvbv STATE OF jJIRGINIA CITY OF m(/l "Nt1 , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this a% day of July, 2005, by 1)kInean met Managing Member of Heron Ridge Golf Club, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 1,2 - 3/,0(o PREPARED BY: SYKES. BOURDON, M AR£RN & LEVY. P.C. EXHIBIT "A" PARCELI: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate, lying and being in the Princess Anne Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the dividing line between the property acquired by Fitzhugh Lee Brown, sometimes known as Fitzhugh Lee Brown, Sr., by Deed of P. W. Ackiss, et al, Special Commissioners, dated January 7, 1937, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 186, at Page 133, and the property known as the Hartley Farm, at its intersection with the westerly line of Highway 628, and running thence in a westerly direction along said dividing line a distance of 300 feet to a point, which point is for the purpose of this description the point of beginning, and running westerly along said dividing line a distance of 350 feet to a point; thence turning and running in a southerly direction and parallel to the western line of said Highway 628 a distance of 650 feet, more or less, to a point 50 feet northerly from the line of the property now or formerly known as the Burroughs Farm; thence turning and running in an easterly direction and at all times parallel with and 50 feet northerly from the said property now or formerly the Burroughs Farm, 650 feet, more or less, to the westerly line of Highway 628; thence in a northerly direction along the westerly line of said Highway 628 a distance of 200 feet to the line of the property conveyed by Fitzhugh Lee Brown, Sr., by Deed dated April 7, 1956, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 459, at Page 453; thence turning and running along the southerly line of the property so conveyed and perpendicular, or nearly so, to the said westerly line of Highway 628 a distance of 125 feet; thence turning and running along the westerly line of the property conveyed by the said Deed recorded in Deed Book 459, at Page 453, a distance of 300 feet; thence turning and running in a westerly direction and perpendicular, or nearly so, to the said Highway 628, a distance of 175 feet; thence turning and running in a northerly direction and parallel to the said Highway a distance of 150 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. GPIN: 2403-67-5038 PARCEL 2: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, being known, numbered and designated as "PARCEL B-2- A" as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PLAT SHOWING A RESUBDIVISION OF LAND BETWEEN PARCELS A5-A AND A6-A, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH PROPERTY, DEED BOOK 3305 PAGE 1405, AND PARCEL B-1 AND PARCEL B-2 9 EVW GROUP, INC., DEED BOOK 3813 PAGE 1196, DEED BOOK 3809 PAGE 1018", dated November 21, 1997, Scale: 1" = 200', prepared by Bengtson, DeBell 8v Elkin, Ltd., which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 263, at Pages 81 - 89. GPIN: 2403-66-4725 ConditionalRezone / HeronRidgePropertieII / Proffer5 Rev.11/22/05 PREPARED BY: I= SYKES. BOURDON. OR AIERN & LEVY. P.C. 10 Zoning Change: from I-T to 0-2 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Corporate Woods Associates, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Corporate Woods Associates LLC for a Change of Zoning District Classification from 1-1 Light Industrial District to 0-2 Office District on property located at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive (GPIN 14678196750000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being within Strategic Growth Area #4, Bonney Road West Corridor, suitable for mixed use development including office, business, hotel, institutional and a mix of residential types. The purpose of this rezoning is to correct a zoning boundary line and provide uniform zoning for the property. (GPIN 14678196750000). DISTRICT 2- KEMPSVILLE ■ Considerations: The majority of the existing 3.5 acres site is zoned 0-2 Office District. A small portion of the site is still zoned 1-1 Light Industrial District, inconsistent with the remainder of the parcel. The 1-1 zoning on the site is the result of the past zoning pattern in this area prior to the development of the office complex. Since office use is allowed within the 1-1 district, there was no need to change the zoning district on the site when the office complex was constructed. The applicant, however, is now requesting a rezoning to 0-2 Office for this portion so that the entire site will be covered by only one zoning category. A church has requested to be located within the building and has submitted a separate Conditional Use Permit request. Churches are not allowed in the 1-1 district; thus the need to rezone the 1-1 to 0-2 at this time. Staff recommends approval of this request. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area and will relocate a zoning boundary line to provide uniform zoning on the subject site. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposal will enable the existing building to have the same zoning classification. Corporate Woods Associates, L.L.C. Page 2of2 ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve the request. ■ 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: 1, Mao.p D-7 nw S.- CORPORATE WOODS ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 10 January 11, 2006 Staff Planner: Barbara Duke REQUEST: 0-2 Change of Zoning District Classification from 1-1 Light Industrial District to 0-2 Office District. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14678196750000 2 - KEMPSVILLE 3.5 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The majority of the existing 3.5 acres site is zoned 0-2 Office District. A small portion of the existing site is still zoned 1-1 Light Industrial District, inconsistent with the remainder of the parcel. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to 0-2 Office for this portion so that the entire site will be covered by only one zoning category. There is an existing high quality office building on the site and the applicant intends to continue to lease the building for office use. In addition, a church has requested to be located within the building and has submitted a Conditional Use Permit request. The church, under the name of Pastor Warren E. Singleton, is Item # 11 on this agenda. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Office Building SURROUNDING LAND North: . Jewish Community Center / 0-2 Office District USE AND ZONING: South: . Office Buildings/ 0-2 Office District East: . Office Buildings / 1-1 Light Industrial District West: a Single-family homes / R-10 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: There are no natural resource or cultural features on this site. CORPORATE WOODS ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item #-10 Page 1 AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES This rezoning will have no measurable impact on City services. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Strategic Growth Area #4, Bonney Road West Corridor, suitable for mixed use development including office, business, hotel, institutional and a mix of residential types. Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION request. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area and will relocate a zoning boundary line to provide uniform zoning on the subject site. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. 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. CORPORATE WOODS ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 1.0 Page 2 1 10/07/85 Rezoning from R-8 Residential to 0-1 Office Granted 2 01/22/90 Rezoning from R-5D Residential to 0-2 Office Granted 3 11/14/88 Conditional Use Permit restaurant Granted 4 1973 1-1 Light Industrial established ZONING HISTORY CORPORATE WOODS ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 10 Page 4 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) Corporate Woods Associates LLC Members - Edwin S. Waitzer, Richard M. Waitzer, Bradley J. Waitzer, Scott D. Waitzer Manager Edwin S. Waitzer . . . ......... . ... 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) . ... . ..... ...... . . . ..... 0 Check here if the applicant is NOT 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) Same as Applicant . .......... __1 . ...... ........... 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) D Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. I & 2 See next page for footnotes CORPORATE WOODS ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item #10 Page 5 ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractois.or businesses that have or will provide services with resp, to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectu services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) CB Richard Ellis - Real Estate Services Benjamin W. Leigh, CPA - Accounting Services "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of th 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 (j) 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 t, entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities she the use of the same offices or employess or othenvise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis-, or there is othervrise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act', Va. Code -6 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accuralE I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has bee; scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on thp.�ijbject property at, least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing accordifl the-iA,-1ructions in this package. 9 - I,- - 1b t c5as S Corporate Woods Associates, L� C A 'es, Edw -S. Waitzer,-Man L n I iqlkt rca n t's turn tjarre Property 0,.%,nars ,Si. (if d'iferent than Print Narre i�. * � — L) CORPORATE WOODS ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 10 Page. 6 Item #10 Corporate Woods Associates, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification 5040 Corporate Woods Drive District 2 Kempsville January 11, 2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next agenda item on the consent agenda is Item #10 Corporate Woods Associates, L.L.C. This is for a Change of Zoning from I-1 Light Industrial to 0- 2 Office on property located at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive in the Kempsville District. Is there a representative from Corporate Woods Associates here? Okay. Dorothy Wood: There might be opposition. Someone just stood up. Janice Anderson: My eyes are bad. Ed Weeden: He's the Pastor for Item #11. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Jay Bernas, would you like to explain this application? Jay Bernas: Based on the staff report, the existing building lies within two different zoning. One is 0-2 and one is I-1. The applicant wishes to change the I-1 to 0-2, which makes sense. The existing building will have the same zoning so, therefore the Commission recommends approval. Janice Anderson: Thank you. I would like to make a motion to approve the following item, Item #10, Corporate Woods Associates, L.L.C. Barry Knight: That is a motion to approve the consent item. Do I have a second? Ronald Ripley: Second. Barry Knight: A second by Ron Ripley. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE Item # 10 Corporate Woods Associates, L.L.C. Page 2 KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0 the Board has approved Item #10 for consent. MapY oflap to Scale Douglas & Valerie Humphrey and Allan Brock, Jr. A-2 O {} { P-1 AG-2 AG-1 0 "° Tj a NOn 0 O E AG-2 P-1 w o BACK BAY On 02�] l� 8 ae O w AG-2 ry PB x D ° WC]P-1 °� °� AG-1 O.4 00 Eb9 009 ,6. AG-2 be 6t Subdivision Variance CUP - Alternative Residential Development r e�`Nu seac. L. 1, Il C CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Alan W. Brock, Jr. — (a) Conditional Use Permit (alternative residential development) and (b) Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: a) An Ordinance upon Application of Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. for a Conditional Use Permit for alternative residential development on property located at 6428 and 6432 Knotts Island Road (GPINs 23379109210000; 23379201180000). DISTRICT 7 / PRINCESS ANNE b) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. Property is located at 6428 and 6432 Knotts Island Road (GPINs 23379109210000; 23379201180000). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE ■ Considerations: The existing lots are Parcel A (7.305 acres and lot width of 153.02-feet) and Parcel B (8.461 acres and lot width of 158.7-feet). The lots were recently subdivided from a larger parcel of 15.138 acres. At that time it was discovered that the 12-foot right-of-way depicted on the previous plats, as part of the 15.138 acres parcel, was actually owned by another entity and recorded by deed in the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The applicants were notified of the problem and applied for the Subdivision Variance and a Conditional Use Permit for Alternative Residential Development. As an alternative to the residential development permitted by -right in the Agricultural districts, the City Council may approve a use permit to allow residential development at a density greater than that which is permitted by -right. Such increase in density is to be approved by the City Council only upon a finding that criteria for such development as specified in the Comprehensive Plan has been satisfied. Staff recommends approval of these requests with conditions. The proposed subdivision variance for the purpose of clarifying the ownership of the existing right-of-way is not in conflict with land use policies outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant could through the Alternative Residential Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. Page 2 of 2 Development be granted a flag lot administratively. Flag lots are permitted by the ordinance and encouraged by the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants are seeking the subdivision variance to further bolster the legality of the property recordation. Considering the combined parcel size of roughly 15 acres and the indication that both parcels are comprised of a majority of Soil Type 1, a Conditional Use Permit for alternative residential development is in keeping with the limited, low -density development options outlined in Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants' request meets the criteria defined in the City Zoning Ordinance, Article 4, Section 405. The sites contain the proper soils for 1 dwelling unit for each 5 acres of land. The applicants submitted the required soils report. The Agriculture and Health Departments have both approved their relevant part of the proposal. The proposed rate of development will not place undue hardships on the existing infrastructure. The proposed flag lot more than meets the required 20-foot width. There was opposition to the requests. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve the requests with the following conditions: The applicants shall submit to the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department a subdivision plat depicting the new lot width for Parcel A and the new lot areas for Parcels A and B. There shall be no development on the sites until the new plats are reviewed and recorded. 2. The applicants shall submit to the Current Planning Division of the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department elevations of proposed single-family dwellings. The proposed design of the dwellings shall be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations in Chapter 6, Rural Residential Development Guidelines. There shall be no building permits issued until the elevations are reviewed and approved. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agenc :Planning Department City Manager: S DOUGLAS W. & VALERIE HIMPHREY AND ALLAN W. BROCK Agenda Item # 142 15 December 14, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUESTS• Map - ,4P-Z4 .. Douglas & VaIerie Humphrey and Allan Brock, Jr. _ 14) Conditional Use Permit for alternative residential development Subdivision Variance CUP - Alternative Residential Develooment 15) 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. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located 6428 and 6432 Knotts Island Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Parcel A — 7 — PRINCESS ANNE Parcel A — 318,224 square feet 23379201180000 Parcel B — 368,541 square feet Parcel B- 23379109210000 SUMMARY OF REQUEST The existing lots are Parcel A, (7.305 acres and lot width of 153.02-feet), and Parcel B, (8.461 acres and lot width of 158.7-feet). The lots were recently subdivided from a larger parcel of 15.138 acres. At that time it was discovered that the 12-foot right-of-way depicted on the previous plats, as part of the 15+acre parcel, was actually owned by another entity and recorded by deed in the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The applicants were notified of the problem and applied for the Subdivision Variance and a Conditional Use Permit for Alternative Residential Development. SUBDIVISION VARIANCE REQUEST Item Requored Parcel B Lot Width in feet 150 141.02" Lot Area in square feet 43,560 299,435 "Variance required ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REQUEST As an alternative to the residential development permitted by right in the agricultural districts, the City Council may approve a use permit to allow residential development at a density greater than that which is permitted by right. The following criteria applies to this request: • On land that is nearly level well -drained or moderately well -drained soils, as described in the comprehensive plan, technical report as soil area #1, with a seasonal high-water table from one and five -tenths (1.5) feet below grade as determined by the Virginia Department of Health and meeting the density allowances in section 200(a) of this ordinance, the maximum density shall be one (1) dwelling unit for each five (5) acres of land. A soil consultant's report was submitted with the request. The consultant determined the site contains more than 10-acres of Type 1 soil as defined in the ordinance, therefore the site qualifies for 2 lots of 5-acres or more. • Evaluation of the soils of a parcel for the purpose of determining the density shall be conducted by a certified soil scientist with confirmation of the results provided by the director of agriculture. The representative for the Department of Agricultural reviewed the request and had no comments. Development proposals shall be in substantial conformance with all applicable provisions of the plan's rural residential development guidelines. The request conforms to the rural residential design guidelines as the lots are intended for single-family dwellings. The annual rate of development shall be restricted so as to minimize burdens placed upon the rural public infrastructure. The rate of development, two single-family dwellings, will not place undue burdens upon the infrastructure. A flag lot may be created in which the lot is connected to a public street with road frontage having a minimum width of twenty (20) feet and in which all other relevant requirements of the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance are met. The proposed flag lot more than meets the minimum 20-foot width. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The lots are undeveloped. SURROUNDING LAND North: Rural residential / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts USE AND ZONING: South: • Rural residential / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts East: . Rural residential / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts West: • Knotts Island Road • Across Knotts Island Road is Rural residential / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts NATURAL RESOURCE AND The property falls within the Southern Watershed. There are no other CULTURAL FEATURES: significant natural resources or cultural features associated with this site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. DOUGLAS & VALERIE HUMPHREY IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Knotts Island Road in front of this application is a rural road. No traffic counts are available for this location. WATER and SEWER: Health Department approval is required for the well and septic systems. The Health Department approved the onsite sewage and water supply systems on May 26, 2005. SCHOOLS: School population is not affected by the proposed subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "Rural Area." The area is characterized as low, flat land with wide floodplains and altered drainage. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as agricultural/rural with uses related to farming, forestry, rural residential, and other rurally compatible uses. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self- inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. Staff recommends approval of these requests with conditions. The proposed subdivision variance for the purpose of clarifying the ownership of the existing right-of-way is not in conflict with land use policies outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant could through the Alternative Residential Development be granted a flag lot administratively. Flag lots are permitted by the ordinance and encouraged by the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants are seeking the subdivision variance to further bolster the legality of the property recordation. DOUGLAS & VALERIE HUMPHREY AND ALLAN $ROCK, RJR. Agenda Item # 14 & 15 Page 3 Considering the combined parcel size of roughly 15 acres, and the indication that both parcels are comprised of a majority of Soil Type 1, a conditional use permit for alternative residential development is in keeping with the limited, low -density development options outlined in Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants' request meets the criteria defined in the City Zoning Ordinance, Article 4, Section 405. The sites contain the proper soils for 1 dwelling unit for each 5-acres of land; the applicants' submitted the required soils report; the Agriculture and Health Departments have both approved the proposals; the proposed rate of development will not place undue hardships on the existing infrastructure; and the proposed flag lot more than meets the required 20-foot width. The recommended conditions are provided below. CONDITIONS 1. The applicants shall submit to the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department a re -subdivision plat depicting the new lot width for Parcel A and the new lot areas for Parcels A and B. There shall be no development on the sites until the new plats are reviewed and recorded. 2. The applicants shall submit to the Current Planning Division of the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department elevations of proposed single-family dwellings. The proposed design of the dwellings shall be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations in Chapter 6, Rural Residential Development Guidelines. There shall be no building permits issued until the elevations are reviewed and approved. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Mao Not to Scale Doi P-I N aie AG-2 P-I ax P-I an & Valerie Humphrey and AllanI - AG-2 � AG_I aw�J 0 O AG-2 °0 o � ox AG -I �a Subdivision Variance CUP - Alternative Residential Development ON BACK BAY Jr. I 1. 11/9/81 Conditional Use Permit (Single-family dwelling)Approved 2. 3/28/83 Subdivision Variance and Conditional Use Permit (Single- familydwelling) Approved 3. 2/9/05 Subdivision Variance A roved 4. 8/10/05 Subdivision Variance A roved `_7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Douglas W. Humphrey and Valerie Humphrey, husband and wife Allan W. Brock, Jr. 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) i X Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. i PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & ` See next page for footnotes Conditional Use Permit Application Page 9 of to Revised 911/2004 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal s iras: {Attach list if necessaly) / Harden Frei S Assoc: L t;e, :_arc .._ / SL , :don. Ahern & Le.yv. ._P P.C. -- ' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity. (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. 1 understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing. 1 am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing wording to the instructions in this package. ♦_{ �7*ppligXnTs Signature. 1�.. "perty, Owner's Signature (if different than Cond+ mA Use Permit Application 1 of 11 Revised 9,'V2'�'.Y.'A Douglas W. Humphrey Valerie Huaohrey 1t Name Allan w. Brock, Jr. Print Name Item # 14 & 15 Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Variance 6428 & 6432 Knotts Island Road District 7 Princess Anne December 14, 2005 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next items are Items #14 & 15, which are Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. An Ordinance upon Application of Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. for a Conditional Use Permit for alternative residential development and an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision of Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. Property is located at 6428 and 6432 Knotts Island Road, District 7, Princess Anne. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney and I have the privilege of representing Mr. & Mrs. Humphrey and Mr. Brock on this application. I'll wait for the plan to get up there. Here is some interesting and factual situation for a real estate attorney but pretty dry and boring for the average person. My clients bought a piece of property that by the conveyance of the property and the plats that were of records, and I do have copies of them all. There are three of them and they go back decades. It was a property that was 15.138 acres and had 311 feet of frontage on Knotts Island Road at the property line and 303 feet of depth that the building setback, and such was in title to be divided into two properties as a matter of right in the AG zoning district. They went through the process and had the property subdivided and as that property came to a conclusion, it was determined and they have good deed to the property. The whole nine yards that there was a title issue and is a title issue that exists with regard to actual ownership of a 12-foot lane. And that is this 12 foot lane that exist right here right along the northern boundary of the property coming back to serve some lots that are on Capps Creek and were subdivided many, many moons ago and in reviewing the title, which I was asked to as I wasn't involved in the purchase. They came to see us after the fact and everything. We did ascertain that and it is clear on all the plats that it is shown as being part of this property formerly the property of Dallas Williams. However, a deed done in June of 1951 conveyed that 12-foot lane to the previous owner, the chain and title but it is currently owned by a gentleman named, and his wife being Michael Cassada and I do think, and I indicated this to everyone that Mr. Cassada has a better claim to the title to the 12 foot lane. And we are here to tell you that we solved that problem. Mr. Cassada is here and we are going to be with this approval quit claiming that lane to our interest. I think he has clearly the better claim of time. We are also going to be conveying some property to him, which he will be incorporating into his lots, which is really irrelevant to what we're doing today. But I told him that we would certainly put Item #14 & 15 Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. Page 2 that on the record that we were going to convey some property back here and some property back on the backside of this property, which he will combine with his lots on Capps Creek. What's before you today is really to clean up this situation. It also turns out because when we take the 12-foot lane out of the equation we are just a smidge under and I mean a small fraction under 15 acres. And while we have over 300 feet of frontage on Knotts Island Road at the setback we are about 8 feet under the required 300 feet. So, what we need to do is the variance for the lot width. Because we have more than 10 acres of good soils and our soils scientist Mr. Weatherby is here. He has provided all the information. We do clearly qualify for the Use Permit for alternative rural residential. We're kind of dealing with a problem in a way that is constructive and staff has properly noted this is an application that is most deserving of support. We certainly hope that you will and it was on your consent agenda. I just kind of wanted to lay it out. I think there is someone here to speak but I'm not sure. I'm not precisely whom. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. We'll call you as soon as we've heard the opposition. Thank you. Joseph Strange: Okay. Speaking in opposition is Archer Crittenden, who is speaking for himself, and the neighbors who are sick and away. Dorothy Wood: Welcome sir. We're glad to have you with us. Archer Crittenden: Thank you ma'am. Madame Chairwoman, my name is Archer Crittenden. I live at 6412 Knotts Island Road. I seek a clarification on the amount of time that I have in view of the fact that my neighbor Mr. Jack Crandell is in the hospital for the past couple of days and my other neighbor Mr. & Mrs. Freeman. Mr. Freeman is recently retired and is away on vacation. Dorothy Wood: How much time do you need sir? Archer Crittenden: I would think 10 minutes would be allowed for the representative is more than adequate. Dorothy Wood: Okay sir. If you could make it quicker we would appreciate it because we have several people here on our land use. Archer Crittenden: I'll do the best that I can. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Archer Crittenden: I live at 6412 Knotts Island Road, which is adjacent property right in here to this parcel. Item # 14 & 15 Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. Page 3 Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Archer Crittenden: Mr. Freeman lives here. Mr. Crandell lives here. They are both adjoining property owners. Mr. Crandell knew personally Mr. Terry Branch with Haden Freye and Mr. Branch was finishing up the wetlands area of his survey, which is right in here when Mr. Crandell saw him one day and Mr. Crandell asked Mr. Branch, what was going on. His comment was he was tightening things up a bit in this area. The issue of the ownership of the lane in which Mr. Bourdon referred is certainly clear by deed and I questioned whether there was any hardship there because this deed existed many, many years before the applicants ever owned the property. Mr. Odom with the City has written to Mr. Branch advising that until this issue is resolved no additional plans will be accepted. He had once said that he was going to withdraw the approval if in fact, Mr. Cassada's deeds met the test. In that communication, Mr. Odom stated frankly "they need 15 acres in order to subdivide." By the applicant's own application, they do not have 15 acres. They say they have 14.9 acres. When you take out the half of acre that is owned by Mr. Cassada, it is reduced that much further. When you take out the actual size of the wetlands versus what is represented on the plat of Hayden Freye, Hayden Freye represents this area to be wetlands only. They put the distance in here from Mr. Freeman if this was scaled would probably be 50 feet or more. Yet, Mr. Freeman has lived on his property for over 25 years and he knows that part of his lot is actually in the wetlands. So, this area in here is in considerable question with regard to whether or not it is wetlands. If we could go to Mr. Weatherby's plat on this property, Mr. Weatherby was there to test this land and he left an area all around the border of these wetlands. Is the map of Mr. Weatherby available please? In the application there is a map that Mr. Weatherby drew. It was colored in and he did his soil test. Robert Miller: We don't have it. Archer Crittenden: Well, there is an area around here and if you could interpret it from that chart, this area is 50 to 60 feet wide in which Mr. Weatherby states that he had no reason to test it. Yet, every other aspect of the field was tested. It is highly suspect, in my view at least, that if this area hadn't been tested, it would have been determined to be wetlands as well. Mr. Saunders, who lives in the property just north of me, he lives right there. Mr. Imhoff who owns the property right here have both written letters to the Commission, which they have asked to be part of the record. And they oppose this application. The reasons for the multiple opposing parties are units. The City application, which this hearing is based upon states that no employee of the City has any interest in this property. Mr. Humphrey is an animal control officer or works in that department. The property is less than 15 acres. The attached plat shows property of others as being part of the applicant's property, further reducing the acreage. The plat shows wetland acreage to be less than what is obvious. By dividing less than 15 acres into two lots, density is increased to more than a desirable level considering that no city sewer or water is likely in the area in question for than 100 years, if ever. The runoff from the two lots instead of one works to cause shallow well problems to at least five Item # 14 & 15 Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. Page 4 preexisting family residences. The watershed from approximately here down through the center of this property here, the watershed is all across these lots from at least half of this parcel of land. Runoff from two lots instead of one cause potential health problems for existing residents because of the proximity of the run off to existing well and septic system. While the application seeks to reduce land area to about seven acres per lot, excluding the wetlands and the dedicate right-of-way for the Knotts Island Road, the applicant through Mr. Bourdon has.just admitted that they are negotiating to sell or have reached an accommodation to sell. Mr. Cassada' s three acres off the back of this parcel that three acres almost being entirely in the best soil classification. So the ten acres of soil that they say is the best of soil is automatically going to be reduced by three acres and in addition of the lots are going to be that much smaller. Much of the area is in Flood Zone A and a potential flood at some time in the future compounds problems for all of the area. I cut it best as I can ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Will you answer any questions that the Commissioners might have for you sir? Archer Crittenden: I certainly will ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any questions? I think you covered it well enough. Donald Horlsey: Where did you say you lived again on that map? Archer Crittenden: Right here sir. Right here. This is my parcel here. I own the land that parallels Mr. Cassada and I own this property. This is part of Back Bay now as a result of some earlier action. I own this strip of land that goes out to the bay as well. Dorothy Wood: Do you grow peaches? Archer Crittenden: No ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Are there any other questions for him? Thank you sir. Archer Crittenden: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon would you like a minute or so sir? Eddie Bourdon: First of all, I have a copy and it's printed in the subdivision plat where he created the two lots adjacent to us, one of which is five acres. The other one is six acres, which you see up there on the aerial, and this was done in 2002. With regard to what we have done with Mr. Cassada in order to solve this title issue, which is a legitimate and significant title issue is we have agreed that upon the approval of this request, these application, his small lots here, which are all legally existing building lots, Item # 14 & 15 Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. Page 5 we are conveying property to him. It will be added to his lots provided that happens. It will clear up the title issue with regard to the road. The two lots that we will have will exceed the size of Mr. Crittenden's two lots. They will also be on septic tanks and on good soils. As you all know, that 10-acre soils, plus under the Alternate Rural Residential Guidelines is just to determine density. We will not be putting any land management. These will all be on septic tanks just as the two lots here will be on septic tanks. No one is building on any wetlands. No non -tidal wetlands are going to be disturbed with the development of this property. It is totally in keeping with the character of the other developments including Mr. Crittenden's two lot subdivision. So the other things set out. We are by providing and giving Cassada the benefit of the doubt that he owns the 12-foot lane, we are at 14.9 acres if you look at the by -right aspect. This is not what this is about. I would also apologize to the Commission. It is my mistake. I was not aware that Mr. Humphrey's was an employee of animal control. I filled out the application. We have to modify the application to correct disclosure. That application was filed after this subdivision was already recorded and came to me to try to find out what the issues were. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Ronald Ripley: Yeah. The lane in question is an access easement backed to everybody else's property? Is that how that works? Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. It is shown on the original plats when those other lots were divided. It is very clear on the plat that is was part of the property that my client bought. The deed to my clients uses the same property line as what they conveyed to him. So, my clients have title insurance and everything else that they own to that line that includes and encompasses that 12-foot lane. So, that was totally a mistake. Ronald Ripley: The other properties that are back there? Eddie Bourdon: These properties here. Mr. Cassada owns these three parcels. Mr. Freeman owns this one. Mr. Crittenden owns this property as well as the other lots to the north. Ronald Ripley: They all share that lane? Eddie Bourdon: No. Mr. Crittenden has his own lane and his flag lot uses his own lane, which is located north of that, which is shown on that plat that I just gave each of you a copies. This lane provides access to these properties back here. Mr. Crittenden's property has it's own access and his lot here, as well as the one here are both flag lots as well. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Item # 14 & 15 Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock, Jr. Page 6 Donald Horlsey: The lots on the creek are they all buildable? Some of them got houses on them right? Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir. Donald Horsley: So the size of them lots? Eddie Bourdon: That's our point. We're exactly going to make those lots larger and more in keeping with what they should be. Donald Horsley: So the seven acre or six point something acre lots are going to be many times larger than those lots. Right? Eddie Bourdon: Correct. We are helping to make these lots larger with our conveyance here. So Mr. Cassada's small lots will be more in keeping with the standard in the area. Ours will still be larger than the rest of the area. We will have our own septic tanks. It's not land management. We felt like once confronted with this situation to try to make something positive out of something that was clearly a mess. I think we've done and with the help of staff and with Mr. Cassada's help and his attorneys, I think we got something the solves the problem. Dorothy Wood: Other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Do I hear a motion? Ronald Ripley: A motion to approve. Barry Knight: Second. Dorothy Wood: A motion to approve by Mr. Ripley and seconded by Mr. Knight. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ABSENT Item # 14 & 15 Douglas W. & Valerie Humpl Page 7 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10 Valerie Humphrey and Allan Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Dec 13 05 10:04a Archer B. Crittenden 757-426-7409 p.1 December 12, 2005 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center — Building 2, Room 115 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 RE: Application of Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey & Allen W. Brock, Jr. Scheduled to be heard 12/14/05 I wish to state my opposition to the above Applications in connection with a conditional use permit and variance. My property (6404 Knotts Island Road) is located just north of the property on which the applications are made. My site plan/septic and well permits are already in place. It is about 6.5 acres with approximately 350 feet of road frontage. Storm water drainage is a problem in this area. In the southwest corner of my property where it adjoins the property of the Crittendens, the Cassadas and the property in question there is constant standing water after a rainstorm and that water is sometimes there for days before draining off. All of the property in this area is in one or more flood zones and the property is served by a very narrow roadway (Knotts Island Road). The idea of putting 2 large houses (and possibly with horses of other farm animals) onto a lot that all of us have understood to be for only one single family residence is alarming. Increasing the density, with the added 3 vehicles per family, additional school bus stops, added trash pickup and added commercial traffic only work to make the already narrow roadway less safe for the neighbor and its' children. Having two sets of drain fields instead of one in such an area is also not desirable especially so since all existing families are served by shallow wells (most 25 feet or less). Very���T�ruly ors, .William J. mhoff 4392 Charity Neck Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23457 Dec 11 05 07:20p Archer B. Crittenden 757-426-7409 p.l December 7, 2005 Virginia Beach Planning Commission Municipal Center Building 2, Room 115 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 RE: Applications of Douglas W. & Valerie Humphrey and Allan W. Brock GP1Ns 23379109210000 & 23379201280000 It is my request that this letter be made a part of the Public Hearing Record on these matters, that are scheduled to be held at Noon on Wednesday, December 14, 2005. My home is the property to the north of Archer B. & Kathryn H. Crittenden, 6412 Knotts Island Road. The property that is being considered for Variance and Conditional Use Permit, described in the reference above, drains in part through a culvert that is under the driveways of the Crittenden and the Cassadas onto my property and into Back Bay. In doing so the drainage water passes between the shallow well that serves my property and the shallow well that serves the Crittenden property. Both wells being within 10 feet or so of the path of the drainage. Some if not all of my property is in Flood Zone A3 thereby increasing the risk of contamination. In granting a request to make this acreage 2 lots the number of drain fields required in the acreage is doubled by the need for a second ground level septic system. It is my further understanding that the subject property is less than 15 acres and is restricted from subdivision by ordinances that have been in effect since 1994. In that we are not likely to get city water and/or city sewer over my lifetime an increase in housing density is not desirable. I am opposed to the subject acreage being more than one lot. Respectfully, ' ` G-. Z' Michael W. Saunders 6410 Knotts Island Road Virginia Beach, VA 23457-1206 CUP - Church CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Pastor Warren E. Singleton (Abounding Grace Assembly) — Conditional Use Permit (church) MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Pastor Warren E. Singleton (Abounding Grace Assembly) for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive (GPIN 14678196750000). DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE ■ Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a church to lease 5,000 square feet of space in an existing office building on the subject site. The proposed term of the lease is three years. There is ample parking on the site to accommodate the current membership of 70-85 people (including children). The applicant indicates that the parking area in the front of the building will be the primary parking area for the church. The church meeting times are scheduled outside of regular office hours. No exterior alterations to the existing structure are proposed. There will be a maximum of only three employees at the church office during weekdays. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they concluded that the use, while not entirely consistent with an office setting, was an acceptable temporary use and would not conflict with the regular office activities within the complex. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The use permit shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis. 2. The church shall only occupy the portions of the office building indicated on the plans submitted to the Planning Department as part of the Conditional Use Permit application. Pastor Warren E. Singleton, Abounding Grace Assembly Page 2 of 2 3. Church services shall only be conducted on Sundays and after 6:00 P.M. on all other days. An office for the church may be operated during traditional business hours. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to the church commencing operation. ■ 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: k-� PASTOR WARREN E. SINGLETON, ABOUNDING GRACE ASSEMBLY Agenda Item # 11 January 11, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara Duke REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a church. 0-2 ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive CUP - GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14678196750000 2 — KEMPSVILLE 3.5 acres The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a SUMMARY OF REQUEST church to lease 5,000 square feet of space in an existing office building on the subject site. The proposed term of the lease is three years. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Office Building SURROUNDING LAND North: . Jewish Community Center /0-2 Office District USE AND ZONING: South: • Office Buildings/0-2 Office District East: . Office Buildings/1-1 Light Industrial District West: . Single-family homes / R-10 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: There are no natural resources or cultural features on this site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana PASTOR WARREN E. SINGLETON, ABOUNDING GRACE ASSEMBLY Agenda Item # 11 Page.1 IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES The church use proposed will not impact City services any more than the office uses currently allowed by - right on the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Strategic Growth Area #4, Bonney Road West Corridor, suitable for mixed use development including office, business, hotel, institutional and a mix of residential types. Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION request with fie the following conditions and contingent upon Item #10 on this agenda being approved. Item #10 is a rezoning from 1-1 Light Industrial District to 0-2 Office District for the portion of the building that the church will occupy. There is ample parking on the site to accommodate the current membership of 70-85 people (including children). The applicant indicates that the parking area in the front of the building will be the primary parking area for the church. The church meeting times are scheduled outside of regular office hours. No exterior alterations to the existing structure are proposed. There will be a maximum of only three employees at the church office during weekdays. CONDITIONS 1. The use permit shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis. 2. The church shall only occupy the portions of the office building indicated on the plans submitted to the Planning Department as part of the Conditional Use Permit application. 3. Church services shall only be conducted on Sundays and after 6:00 P.M. on all other days. An office for the church may be operated during traditional business hours. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to the church commencing operation. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. PASTOR WARREN E. SINGLETON, ABOUNDING GRACE. ASSEMBLY Agenda Item # -11 Page 2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN PASTOR WARREN E. SINGLETON, ABOUNDING GRACE ASSEMBLY Agenda Item #.11, Page 4 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN PASTOR WARREN E. SINGLETON, ABOUNDING GRACE ASSEMBLY Agenda Item # .1-1 Page 5 is__ r � w1f 7w7 a iiwl+ a.+—i Map Not to Scale 070 av ©film Ell 0 bg�l WORN- � � � : �`' tip► ,� CUP - Church 7'7 Av1 • 1 W�m P-P 1 10/07/85 Rezoning from R-8 Residential to 0-1 Office Granted 2 01/22/90 Rezoning from R-5D Residential to 0-2 Office Granted 3 11/14/88 Conditional Use Permit restaurant Granted 4 1973 1-1 Light Industrial established ZONING HISTORY PASTOR WARREN E. SINGLETON, ABOUNDING GRACE ASSEMBLY Agenda Item #.11 Page 6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Abounding Grace Assembly Pastor Warren Singleton 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) NA 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) Corporate Woods Associates LLC -Edwin Waitzer, Manager and Member Bradley J. Waitzer, Member, Scott D. Waitzer, Member Richard M. Waitzer, Member 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & See next page for footnotes Conditional Use Permit Application Page 9 of 10 Revised 9,11/2001 PASTOR WARREN E. SINGLETON, ABOUNDING GRACE ASSEMBLY Agenda Item #.1.1 Page 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT � ADDiTIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Ronald H. Rowe- S.L. Nusbaum & Co. inc. -Real estate service Wilfredo Bonilla Jr. - Legal Service Matt Wiibrcht- CB Richard Ellis -Real estate service 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 sarre offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis: or there is othervAse 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 noti-;cation (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing. I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the in ctions in this package.,�,� Appiicaff' ..Sign .ure "" _- Print Name r 1r ssociates LLC Corpclrate T.?oclds Associa Corp6r B By Edwin S. Waitzer�a rotierWOwner's S.igeu^iar (i ? Ifar2nt ?han applicant) Pri^i Name Ccnc;&0na Use Penni App!:Cs'ar. pag=10c'10 Revised 9!1 iMC 4 LLC r PASTOR WARREN E. SINGLETON, ABOUNDING GRACE ASSEMBLY Agenda Item #-:11 Page 8 Item #11 Pastor Warren E. Singleton (Abounding Grace Assembly) Conditional Use Permit 5040 Corporate Woods Drive District 2 Kempsville January 11, 2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next item is Item #11 Pastor Warren E. Singleton (Abounding Grace Assembly). It is for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 5040 Corporate Woods Drive, Kempsville District. Pastor. There are three conditions that is has been approved. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Pastor Warren Singleton: Yes. I am. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Ed Weeden: Pastor, just for the record, please state your name. Pastor Warren Singleton: Warren Singleton. Ed Weeden: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: This is for a Conditional Use Permit for a church to be within the office building as currently not zoned for a church. It is currently zoned I-1. In Item #10 it is trying to be zoned to an 0-2 to allow this use. Based on the conditions we have provided we believe this is a good use for this site and that the Commission approves it. Janice Anderson: Okay. There are no objections to this item correct? Okay. I would like to make a motion to approve the following item, Item #11, Pastor Warren E. Singleton (Abounding Grace Assembly) with three conditions. Barry Knight: That is a motion to approve the consent item. Do I have a second? Ronald Ripley: Second. Barry Knight: A second by Ron Ripley. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE Item #11 Pastor Warren E. Singleton (Abounding Grace Assembly) Page 2 BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0 the Board has approved Item #11 for consent. CUP - Church 'iA 1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Destiny Life Center — Conditional Use Permit (church) MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Destiny Life Center for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 4554 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Suite 201 (GPIN 14775644360000). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE ■ Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for the use for church services of an existing movie theatre located in the Pembroke Mall church. The church services will only be held on Sunday mornings between the hours of 9:45 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. within Theater #2, when the mall or theatre is not yet open. The application states that between 100 and 200 members are anticipated at the service. As the parking on this site is sufficient, it appears that no conflicts with existing businesses or with the nearby residential neighborhood will occur. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they felt that the proposed use was appropriate for the site and would not conflict with the existing businesses. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The use permit shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis. 2. Church services shall only occupy Theater # 2, as indicated in the Conditional Use Permit application. 3. Church services shall only be conducted on Sundays between 9:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. (noon). Destiny Life Center Page 2of2 ■ 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: ��-• DESTINY LIFE CENTER Agenda Item # 15 January 11, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a church. a ■ G,ti �� ,1, � - i Q 1� �jt? ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on 4554 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Suite 201, inside the Pembroke Mall. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14775644360000 5 - LYNNHAVEN 37,178 square feet (existing theatre) The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow for SUMMARY OF REQUEST the use of a church, specifically inside the existing movie theatre located in the Pembroke Mall. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Developed site as a movie theatre inside the existing Pembroke Mall. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single family dwellings, office, mixed retail / B-3 Business USE AND ZONING: District, R-7.5 Residential District South: 0 Mixed retail and office / B-3A Central Business District East: . Mixed retail / B-3 Business District West: 0 Mixed retail / B-3 Business District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is almost entirely impervious as it is developed as a shopping CULTURAL FEATURES: mall. The property is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are no significant environmental resources on the property. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Virginia Beach No Sunday Existing Land Use — Boulevard data negligible ADT available Proposed Land Use 3- 300 ADT for Sunday Average Daily Trips s as the mall is closed Sunday momings, the ADT is negligible 3 as defined by 200 members The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city COMPREHENSIVE PLAN as the Strategic Growth Area 4 — Town Center. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area bound by Independence Boulevard, Virginia Beach Boulevard, Constitution Drive and the railroad right of way as an area where the vertical and horizontal integration of urban designed uses including office, retail, restaurant, entertainment, residential, cultural, education, leisure and open space should be incorporated. Well -designed, centralized parking structures coupled with urban streetscapes that are designed to accommodate pedestrian movement in a safe, interesting and attractive environment are also critical components. Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION request. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The church's services will only be held on Sunday mornings between the hours of 9:45 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., when the mall or theatre is not yet open. The application states that between 100 and 200 members are anticipated at the service. As there is plenty of parking on this site, it appears that no conflicts with existing businesses or with the nearby residential neighborhood will occur. CONDITIONS 1. The use permit shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis. 2. Church services shall only occupy Theater # 2, as indicated in the Conditional Use Permit application. 3. Church services shall only be conducted on Sundays between 9:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. (noon). NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. DESTI bill lp . Ih MEN "Ilii-! Lt1iiiiii K `f rrri.��f i s $Rn�sss� 1 11/27/90 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (mini Granted golf) 2 10/10/00 CHANGE OF ZONING (B-3 to Granted Conditional B-3A 3 02/08/00 CHANGE OF ZONING (B-3 to Granted Conditional B-3A 4 04/08/97 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto Granted service station 5 09/10/96 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Granted (unmanned wireless communication facility) 6 01/23/96 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT tower Granted 7 12/17/91 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (auto Granted repair) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, ttpartners, etc, below: (Attach list If necessary) 174.5'7'lJvi 1 CGJT£R-y` 7'1E. 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach fist if necessary) No�E, 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: rt _ List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, /partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) -5v'Suce Arr evvrea L4_s-r� z 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary or affiliated business entity relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. I & 2 See next page for footnotes Concils onal Use Penrit Application Page d of 10 Rovaed ett12004 PEMBROKE SQUARE ASSOCIATES, A Virginia general partnership BLUE RIDGE ASSOCIATES OF VIRGENIA, L.L.C. General Partner By: Frederick J. Napolitanc, Operating Manager FREDERICK J. NAPOLITANO TRUST I General Partner By: Frederick J. Napolitano, Trustee ETMMO OLIVIERI FAINTLY PARTNERSHIP NO.1 General Partner By: Richard E. Olivieri, Trustee of the Richard. E. Olivieri Revocable Trust, dated 7/14/04, Partner SHENANDALE ASSOCIATES General Partner By: Vincent R. Olivieri, Managing Partner ARNION OLD FAMILY TRUST General Partner By: Vincent R. Olivieri, Trustee ARMON OLIVIERI MARITAL TRUST General Partner By: Vincent R. plivieri, Trustee RICHARD E. OLPURI REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED 7/14/04 General Partner By: Richard E. Olivieri, Trustee F J NAPOLITANO IRREVOCABLE TRUST - 2002 FOR THE BENEFIT OF VINCENT A. NAPOLITANO General Partner M Vincent A. Napolitano, Trustee F J NAPOLITANO IRREVOCABLE'TRUST - 2002 FOR THE BENEFIT OF FREDERICK LNAPOLITANO H General Partner By: Vincent A, Napolitano, Trustee F J NAPOLITANO IRREVOCABLE TRUST -- 2002 FOR THE BENEFIT OF JOHN C. NAPOLIT_4NO General Partner By: Vincent A. Napolitano, Trustee F J NAPOLITANO IRREVOCABLE TRUST - 2002 FOR THE BENEFIT OF THERESA NAPOLITANO HUDGINS General Partner By: Vincent A. Napolitano, Trustee DISCLOSURE STATEMENT -11 ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) "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 c,btaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to th - s r this package. j , i�4s t�s wb�y Applicant's Signature Print ivafe Omners Sig, ature (if different than applicant) Print N e Conditional Use Permit Applicaticn Page 1Q e! 10 Rev sed 9i1:.12004 DESTINY'LIFE CENTER Agenda -Item # 15 .Page; 9 Item # 15 Destiny Life Center Conditional Use Permit 4554 Virginia Beach Boulevard District 4 Bayside January 11, 2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next item is Item #15 Destiny Life Center. It is for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 4554 Virginia Beach Boulevard in the Bayside District and that has three conditions. Is the representative here? Welcome. Please state your name. Pastor Doug Dowdey: My name is Pastor Doug Dowdey. I'm Pastor of the church. Janice Anderson: Thank you Pastor. We put it on the consent agenda with three conditions. Do you agree with those conditions sir? Pastor Doug Dowdey: I didn't know there were any conditions. I'm sorry. Janice Anderson: They were added during our informal. Let me go over those with you. The first condition is that the Use Permit shall be administratively reviewed annually. Pastor Doug Dowdey: Okay. Janice Anderson: Church services shall only occupy theatre #2, and church services shall be conducted Sundays between 9:00 am and 12:00 pm. Pastor Doug Dowdey: Yeah. We have to be out by 11:45 anyways so that is good. Janice Anderson: So those conditions are agreeable? Pastor Doug Dowdey: We show up earlier than 9:00 am to set up. The actual service doesn't take place until 10:00? Janice Anderson: That's fine. Pastor Doug Dowdey: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Is there any opposition to this application? Okay. Mr. Ripley can you review this application? Item # 15 Destiny Life Center Page 2 Ronald Ripley: Yes. She is not picking on me. They are all in the Bayside area. This is making use of a theatre in the Pembroke Mall. This church is, I assume, is a growing church and will be used in the morning, when it is not being used, and only on Sunday mornings, and we, and staff recommended approval. We agree with the staff, so that is why we put it on the consent. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Ripley. I would like to make a motion to approve the following item, Item #15 Destiny Life Center with three conditions. Barry Knight: That is a motion to approve the consent item. Do I have a second? Ronald Ripley: Second. Barry Knight: A second by Ron Ripley. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0 the Board has approved Item #15 for consent. -30- T*em TT-T I PLANNING ITEM # 20948 Attorney Grover Wright represented the applicant. Upon motion by Councilwoman McClanan, seconded by Councilwoman Oberndorf, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of COLONIAL SELF STORAGE for a Conditional Use Permit per the following: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF COLONIAL SELF STORAGE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R01183584 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: Ordinance upon application of Colonial Self Storage for a Conditional Use Permit for mini -warehouses on certain property located on the west side of Holland Road beginning at a point 200 feet more or less north of Shipps Corner Road, running a distance of 315 feet along the west side of Holland Road, running a distance of 200 feet in a southwesterly direction, running a distance of 150 feet in a south- easterly direction, running a distance of 85 feet in a southwesterly direction, running a distance of 160 feet in a southeasterly direction, running a distance of 250 feet in a southwesterly direction, running a distance of 685 feet in a northwesterly direction and running a distance of 1100 feet in a northeasterly direction. Said parcel contains 8.5 acres. PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH. The following requirements are to be met: 1. Dedication of right-of-way along the frontage on Holland Road, together with the dedication of temporary construction easement as per Sheet 7 of the Holland Road, Phase IV, construction plans on file with the Department of Public Works/ Engineering Division. 2. Dedication of a 150-foot drainage easement mea- sured from the centerline of the existing 20-foot drainage easement. This Ordinance shall be effective from the date of adoption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Fourteenth day of November, Nineteen Hundred, Eighty -Three. Voting: 9-0 CUP - Mini Warehouse flo CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Shurgard — Conditional Use Permit (mini -warehouses) MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Shurgard for a Conditional Use Permit for mini - warehouses on property located at 3201 Holland Road (GPIN 14950696840000). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL ■ Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing self - storage facility located on the site. The existing facility was granted a Conditional Use Permit to operate in 1982. The existing facility has 22,600 square feet of storage and the proposed expansion will contain at total of 81,000 square feet of storage. The proposed modifications include moving the rental office to the west side and constructing two new buildings. One building will be located on the west side of the property, which is currently open and being used for storage of boats and trailers. There is another new structure proposed for the eastern end of the property, which will be visible from Holland Road. This structure will be a three story self -storage facility. The existing buildings will be modified to accommodate the structure. The proposal will require the applicant to obtain a setback variance along Buckner Boulevard frontage. Staff recommends approval of this request. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposal is compatible with the adjacent business areas. It is buffered from the nearby Buckner Farm residential area by a large open space area and the golf driving range. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they felt that it was an appropriate use for the site. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: Shurgard Page 2of2 1. The expansion of the self -storage facility shall substantially adhere to the site plan titled "Shurgard of Holland Road" that has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the Department of Planning. 2. The covered loading area encroaches into a public drainage easement. Approval of the encroachment must be obtained from the Department of Public Works in order to construct this improvement as shown. 3. Foundation landscaping will be required for all of the proposed and existing buildings along Buckner Boulevard. 4. There shall be no electric or diesel power generator or generator fueled by any other source of energy located outside of any building. 5. The storage units shall be used only for storage of goods. The units shall not be used for office purposes, band rehearsals, residential dwellings, or any other purpose not consistent with the storage of goods. 6. No barbed wire, razor wire, or any other fencing devices shall be installed on the roof or walls of the building or on the fence surrounding the property. 7. The expansion shall substantially adhere to the renderings entitled "Shurgard of Holland Road," dated 11-7-05. 8. Fencing facing Holland Road or the Future Buckner Boulevard Extension shall be in wrought -iron style. 9. Any new freestanding sign shall be monument style, not to exceed eight (8) feet in height, and shall be constructed or materials matching the exterior of the building. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agenc : Planning Department City Manager: vL SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 January 11, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara Duke REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for self -storage facility ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3201 Holland Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14950696840000 3 — ROSE HALL 3.85 acres The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to expand the SUMMARY OF REQUEST existing self -storage facility located on the site. The existing facility was granted a Conditional Use Permit to operate in 1982. The existing facility has 22,600 square feet of storage and the proposed expansion will contain at total of 81,000 square feet of storage. The proposed modifications include moving the rental office to the west side and constructing two new buildings. One building will be located on the west side of the property, which is currently open and being used for storage of boats and trailers. There is another new structure proposed for the eastern end of the property, which will be visible from Holland Road. This structure will be a three-story self -storage facility. The existing buildings will be modified to accommodate the new structure. The proposal will require the applicant to obtain a setback variance along the Buckner Boulevard frontage. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Self -storage facility SURROUNDING LAND North: . Future Buckner Boulevard Extension / B-2 Community USE AND ZONING: Business District South: . Golf Driving Range / R-5D Residential Duplex District East: . 7-11 and C&P Telephone / B-2 Community Business District West: . Golf Driving Range / R-5D Residential Duplex District NATURAL RESOURCE AND There is a large drainage ditch along the side and rear of the property SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 Page 1 CULTURAL FEATURES: covered by a public drainage easement. This site lies just west of the border of the Southern Watershed Management Area, therefore, no buffer is required by ordinance along the ditch. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 70-75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Based on the newly adopted zoning ordinance amendments, the proposed use is considered compatible with airfield operations. The Navy has reviewed this request and concurs with this determination. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION_ PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Buckner Boulevard (currently undeveloped) in front of the existing Shurguard facility is a stub street that currently only connects to Holland Road @ Shipps Comer Road. The City is working with a developer on the Buckner Boulevard Extended cost participation project that will extend Buckner Boulevard to the west to tie into Buckner Boulevard that currently ends east of Rosemont Road through the Buckner Farms subdivision. This roadway improvement project is currently being negotiated and the CIP shows that construction is expected to begin in Spring 2006. There is no right-of-way needed for the new roadway with the exception of a triangle of property adjacent to Holland Road. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Buckner N/A 6,200 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — 53 Boulevard (Proposed 2 lane Service C) ADT Proposed Land Use s — major collector) 194 ADT Average uaiiy Trips 2 as defined by22,600 s.f. of self storage 3 as defined by 81,660 s.f. of sell storage WATER: This site has an existing water meter which may be used or upgraded. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station #551 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within COMPREHENSIVE PLAN the Primary Residential Area. Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 Page 2 request with conditions recommended by staff. The recommended conditions are provided below. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposal is compatible with the adjacent business areas. It is buffered from the nearby Buckner Farm residential area by a large open space area and the golf driving range. CONDITIONS 1. The expansion of the self -storage facility shall substantially adhere to the site plan titled "Shurgard of Holland Road" that has been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the Department of Planning. 2. The covered loading area encroaches into a public drainage easement. Approval of the encroachment must be obtained from the Department of Public Works in order to construct this improvement as shown. 3. Foundation landscaping will be required for all of the proposed and existing buildings along Buckner Boulevard. 4. There shall be no electric or diesel power generator or generator fueled by any other source of energy located outside of any building. 5. The storage units shall be used only for storage of goods. The units shall not be used for office purposes, band rehearsals, residential dwellings, or any other purpose not consistent with the storage of goods. 6. No barbed wire, razor wire, or any other fencing devices shall be installed on the roof or walls of the building or on the fence surrounding the property. 7. The expansion shall substantially adhere to the renderings entitled "Shurgard of Holland Road," dated 11-7-05. 8. Fencing facing Holland Road or the Future Buckner Boulevard Extension shall be in wrought -iron style. 9. Any new freestanding sign shall be monument style, not to exceed eight (8) feet in height, and shall be constructed or materials matching the exterior of the building. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office wifth the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 Page 3 -Lookiyn----Nor'th� ` �4- g It 4 ; S. sh'pp riser Rd. F _. ll?'7l:lz c.L t 1� 11 I { I i {I A WI ' !{ ` j •' I i � - of 11 •. � d' � W � U T y N W c a � Z Q J a w M PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 Page 5 PROPOSED SITE PLAN (DETAIL) SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 Page 6 SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 Page 7 SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 Page 8 1 12/10/84 Rezoning from R-8 Residential to B-2 Community Business Granted 2 10/19/87 Conditional Use Permit (self -storage) Granted 3 11/14/82 Conditional Use Permit (self -storage) Granted ZONING HISTORY SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 Page 9 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Name: SSCI Officers: Chuck Barbo, Dave Grant, Harrell Beck Dev Ghose, Steve Tyler, Jane Orenstein 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) N/A 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. 8 2 See next page for footnotes Conditional Use Permit Application Page 9 of 10 Revised 9/1/2004 SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 Page 10 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) - �%�/�irn�/sEx✓/r��,�I �/its T .fit ,oE�/,�i�ra ' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Govemment Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity. (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. 1 understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible fer obtaining apd posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the in uctions in this package. nle� r sien Print Names than applicant) ✓ Print Name coo6rion2l Use Perrrit Application Pego ' 0 or 10 Reused 9I1204 SHURGARD Agenda Item # 12 Page 11 Item # 12 Shurguard Conditional Use Permit 3201 Holland Road District 3 Rose Hall January 11, 2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next agenda item is Item #12 Shurguard. This is for a Conditional Use Permit for mini -warehouses on property located at 3201 Holland Road in the Rose Hall District. Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Ms. Anderson. Again, my pleasure to represent the applicant on what I think should be a modification of an existing Use Permit for the same use. We are in accord with the staff's recommendation and the conditions set forth in their recommendation. I think you all decided to make a change to include elevation, which we were perfectly happy with. We're also happy with any new freestanding signage monument style Janice Anderson: That was our understanding that would be eight conditions. The eight was the monument sign. Eddie Bourdon: Any freestanding monument style and would be no more than eight feet in height. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Gene Crabtree will explain this application. Eugene Crabtree: This is an application for a change in self -storage unit. They are going to remove the current office and build a freestanding warehouse that will be climate controlled, which will improve and it would change the entrance to the self -storage to be on Buckner Boulevard, which is a new street that is going adjacent to this storage unit which will make it much easier and much more convenient for the clients to get into. We think this is a good use for the facility and the property, and therefore, we put it on the consent agenda. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Kay Wilson: There are nine conditions. Janice Anderson: There are nine now? Kay Wilson: There are nine conditions. Item # 12 Shurguard Page 2 Karen Lasley: The wrought iron fence. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: We're in agreement with all nine. Janice Anderson: Thank you. I would like to make a motion to approve the following item, Item #12, Shurguard with nine conditions. Barry Knight: That is a motion to approve the consent item. Do I have a second? Ronald Ripley: Second. Barry Knight: A second by Ron Ripley. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0 the Board has approved Item # for consent. iF. 11 J «.tidtA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach — Clear Zone Amendment MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: An Ordinance to amend Sections 501, 901, and 1001 of the City Zoning Ordinance by prohibiting uses designated as incompatible in the portions of Residential, Business, and Industrial Zoning Districts within the Clear Zone. ■ Considerations: One of the provisions of the December 20, 2005 ordinance adopting the City's plan for compliance with the BRAC Commission's decision concerning NAS Oceana was that the City Manager and City Attorney were authorized and directed to bring forward, for the City Council's consideration, proposed amendments to the Plan whenever such amendments are necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of the Plan. Although the Plan adopted on December 20 included an ordinance restricting certain development in APZ-1, it did not provide for restrictions on development in the Clear Zone (nor does the BRAC Commission's decision require such restrictions). However, because of the appropriateness of restricting development in the Clear Zone in the same manner as it is now restricted in APZ-1, the City Council passed a resolution on January 24, 2006, directing the Planning Commission to hear the matter at its February 8, 2006 meeting and to make its recommendation on the ordinance at that time. The proposed ordinance prohibits any use deemed incompatible in the Clear Zone unless: (1) it is a replacement of the same use or structure; and (2) the replacement use or structure is of equal or lesser density or intensity than the original use or structure. The provisions are identical to those contained in the APZ-1 Ordinance adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council. City of Virginia Beach — Clear Zone Amendment Page 2of2 ■ Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. (� Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departments 00 City Manager: V CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 501, 901, AND 1001 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE Agenda Item # 12 February 8, 2006 Public Hearing REQUEST An Ordinance to amend Sections 501, 901, and 1001 of the City Zoning Ordinance by prohibiting uses designated as incompatible in the portions of Residential, Business, and Industrial Zoning Districts within the Clear Zone. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT One of the provisions of the December 20, 2005 ordinance adopting the City's plan for compliance with the BRAC Commission's decision concerning NAS Oceana was that the City Manager and City Attorney were authorized and directed to bring forward, for the City Council's consideration, proposed amendments to the Plan whenever such amendments are necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of the Plan. Although the Plan included an ordinance restricting certain development in APZ-1, it did not provide for restrictions on development in the Clear Zone (nor does the BRAC Commission's decision require such restrictions). However, because of the appropriateness of restricting development in the Clear Zone in the same manner as it is now restricted in APZ-1, the City Council passed a resolution on January 24, 2006, directing the Planning Commission to hear the matter at its February 8, 2006 meeting and to make its recommendation on the ordinance at that time. The ordinance will be brought before the City Council on February 14, 2006. The proposed ordinance prohibits any such use in the Clear Zone unless: (1) it is a replacement of the same use or structure; and (2) the replacement use or structure is of equal or lesser density or intensity than the original use or structure. The provisions are identical to those contained in the APZ-1 Ordinance adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the package of amendments adopted by City Council in response to the BRAC order. This ordinance will prevent incompatible development from increasing in the Clear Zone area and the amendment is recommended for approval. 1 '� f .-' 1 t 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 501, 901 AND 2 1001 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE BY 3 PROHIBITING USES DESIGNATED AS INCOMPATIBLE IN 4 THE PORTIONS OF RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS AND 5 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CLEAR 6 ZONE 7 8 Sections Amended: CZO §§ 501, 901 and 1001 9 10 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare 11 and good zoning practice so require; 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 13 OF VIRGINIA BEACH: 14 That Sections 501, 901 and 1001 of the City Zoning Ordinance 15 are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: 17 Sec. 501. Use regulations [Residential Districts]. 18 19 . . . . 20 21 22 (c) Special restrictions in Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ- 23 1). No use or structure shall be permitted on any property located 24 within Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ-1) or the Clear Zone unless 25 such use is designated as Compatible in APZ-1 or the Clear Zone, as 26 the case may be, in Table 2 ("Air Installations Compatible Use 27 Zones Land Use Compatibility in Accident Potential Zones") of 28 Section 1804; provided, however, that any use or structure not 29 designated as Compatible shall be permitted as a replacement of the 30 same use or structure if the replacement use or structure is of 31 equal or lesser density or intensity than the original use or 1 32 structure. 33 34 The amendment prohibits new uses and structures that are incompatible under Table 2 ("Air 35 Installations Compatible Use Zones Land Use Compatibility in Accident Potential Zones") of Section 36 1804 in portions of Residential Districts within Clear Zones. The amendment, which has the same effect 37 in Clear Zones as the APZ-1 Ordinance adopted on December 20, 2005, allows replacement uses and 38 structures so long as they are of lesser or equal density or intensity as the original use or structure. 39 40 41 Sec. 901. Use Regulations [Business Districts]. 42 43 44 (a) Principal and conditional uses. The following chart lists 45 those uses permitted within the B-1 through B-4C Business 46 Districts. Those uses and structures in the respective business 47 districts shall be permitted as either principal uses indicated by 48 a "P" or as conditional uses indicated by a "C." Uses and 49 structures indicated by an "X" shall be prohibited in the 50 respective districts. No uses or structures other than as specified, 51 shall be permitted. 52 53 (c) Special restrictions in Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ-1). 54 No use or structure shall be permitted on any property located 55 within Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ-1) or the Clear Zone unless 56 such use is designated as Compatible in APZ-1 or the Clear Zone, as 57 the case may be, in Table 2 ("Air Installations Compatible Use 58 Zones Land Use Compatibility in Accident Potential Zones") of 59 Section 1804; provided, however, that any use or structure not 60 designated as Compatible shall be permitted as a replacement of the 2 61 same use or structure if the replacement use or structure is of 62 equal or lesser density or intensity than the original use or 63 structure. 64 COMMENT 65 66 The amendment prohibits new uses and structures that are incompatible under Table 2 ("Air 67 Installations Compatible Use Zones Land Use Compatibility in Accident Potential Zones") of Section 68 1804 in portions of Business Districts within Clear Zones. The amendment, which has the same effect in 69 Clear Zones as the APZ-1 Ordinance adopted on December 20, 2005, allows replacement uses and 70 structures so long as they are of lesser or equal density or intensity as the original use or structure. 71 72 . . . . 73 74 75 Sec. 1001. Use regulations [Industrial Districts]. 76 77 . . . . 78 79 (c) Special restrictions in Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ-1). 80 No use or structure shall be permitted on any property located 81 within Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ-1) or the Clear Zone unless 82 such use is designated as Compatible in APZ-1 or the Clear Zone, as 83 the case may be, in Table 2 ("Air Installations Compatible Use 84 Zones Land Use Compatibility in Accident Potential Zones") of 85 Section 1804; provided, however, that any use or structure not 86 designated as Compatible shall be permitted as a replacement of the 87 same use or structure if the replacement use or structure is of 88 equal or lesser density or intensity than the original use or 89 structure. 90 91 COMMENT 92 93 The amendment prohibits new uses and structures that are incompatible under Table 2 ("Air 94 Installations Compatible Use Zones Land Use Compatibility in Accident Potential Zones") of Section 95 1804 in portions of Industrial Districts within Clear Zones. The amendment, which has the same effect 3 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 in Clear Zones as the APZ-1 Ordinance adopted on December 20, 2005, allows replacement uses and structures so long as they are of lesser or equal density or intensity as the original use or structure. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2006. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 4/Q - Z-�f - Z4ro" Planning De ar ment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City ttorney's Office CA-9881 OID\ordres\AICUZ\Clear Zone ordin.doc R-1 January 6, 2005 4 Item #12 City of Virginia Beach — Clear Zones An Ordinance to amend Sections 501, 901, and 1001 of the City Zoning Ordinance by prohibiting uses designated as Incompatible in the portions of the Residential, Business, and Industrial Zoning Districts within the Clear Zone. February 8, 2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next item that we have on consent is Item #12. The applicant is the City of Virginia Beach - Clear Zones. This is for an Ordinance to amend Sections 501, 901 and 1001 of the City Zoning Ordinance by prohibiting uses designated as incompatible in the portions of Residential, Business, and Industrial Zoning Districts within the Clear Zone. I don't believe there is a representative here but we have put it on consent. Is there any opposition to this application? Jack Reich: Hello. My name is Jack Reich. I am a property owner on South First Colonial. I would just like clarification as far as what is going to be done here. I just got the letter in the mail. And being valuable property, it has been in the Clear Zone, and I need clarification on it. Barry Knight: We'll get Mr. Macali to answer your question for you if he can. Bill Macali: Sir, the APZ Ordinance that City Council passed December 20, 2005, if you're at all familiar with what that did. Jack Reich: Yes. Bill Macali: This just extends the provisions of that ordinance to property within the Clear Zone. So property in the Clear Zones will be treated exactly the same as property in APZ1. Now the City Council will be hearing this same ordinance next Tuesday at its meeting. And at the same time, they will hear an ordinance which extends the same type, what we call the APZ1 Use and Acquisition Plan, to properties in the Clear Zones. We'll be happy to send you a complete copy if you like. It provides for compensation of property owners who are affected by the ordinance. That matter didn't have to come to the Planning Commission so it is not on the agenda today but property owners under the appropriate circumstances will be compensated for their property in the Clear Zone exactly the same way as the people in APZ1 will. Jack Reich: Okay. I thought City Council decided not to do anything as far taking people's houses. Bill Macali: City Council will not condemn anyone's property unless the property owner asks for it. In certain cases that is necessary because condemnation will clear up title Item # 12 City of Virginia Beach — Clear Zones Page 2 problems for instance. But the City Council absolutely will not involuntarily condemn or involuntarily acquire anyone's property at all. Jack Reich: So we don't have to worry about losing our property? Bill Macali: That is correct. Jack Reich: Or anything else? Bill Macali: That is right. There will be no condemnation unless the property owner requested for reasons, which are his own. He does not need a good reason. He just request that it be done. But the City will not do so against any property owner's will. Jack Reich: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Excuse me sir? Jack Reich: Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: Do you still want to object to this item being placed on the consent agenda or are you satisfied with the explanation? Jack Reich: I'm satisfied with the explanation. Janice Anderson: Thank you sir. Jack Reich: Thank you. Janice Anderson: So, we're going to consider your objection withdrawn. I would like to make a motion with regard to the consent agenda to consent Item #12 City of Virginia Beach — Clear Zone Ordinance. Barry Knight: A motion has been made. Do I have a second? rD Dorothy Wood: Second. Barry Knight: Okay, a second by Dot Wood. Is there any discussion? Let's call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE Item #12 City of Virginia Beach — Clear Zones Page 3 HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved Item #12 for consent. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the APZ-1 Use and Acquisition Plan by Including Clear Zones Within the Provisions of the Plan MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 ■ Background: One of the measures the City adopted in response to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission's August 2005 decision was to adopt the APZ-1 Ordinance, which prohibits new development of .uses deemed Incompatible in APZ-1 under the Navy's OPNAV Instruction. In order to provide a method by which affected property owners can receive compensation in cases in which their property is rendered undevelopable by the APZ-1 Ordinance, the City also adopted the APZ-1 Use and Acquisition Plan ("APZ-1 Plan"). The City Council will also consider on February 14, 2006 an ordinance applying the same development restrictions contained in the APZ-1 Ordinance to property within Clear Zones. If that ordinance is adopted, the same considerations of fairness in compensating APZ-1 property owners would also apply in Clear Zones. ■ Considerations: The proposed ordinance would: (1) amend the APZ-1 Plan to include Clear Zones, such that property owners in APZ-1 and Clear Zones would be treated identically; and (2) change the name of the Plan to the "APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan." ■ Public Information: No special form of advertisement or public notice is required for this ordinance. ■ Alternatives: The City Council may, if it desires, not adopt this ordinance. If, however, the City Council adopts the amendments to the APZ-1 Ordinance, thereby subjecting property in Clear Zones to the same development restrictions as apply in APZ-1, the result would be clearly disparate treatment of property owners in the two areas. ■ Recommendations: Adoption of ordinance ■ Attachments: Ordinance; amended APZ-1/Clear Zone Use & Acquisition Plan; conformed copy of APZ-1/Clear Zone Use & Acquisition Plan. Recommended Action: Adoption of �ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: V City Manager: 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND 2 REORDAIN THE APZ-1 USE AND 3 ACQUISITION PLAN BY INCLUDING 4 CLEAR ZONES WITHIN THE 5 PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN 6 7 8 WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, the City Council 9 adopted Ordinance No. 2914K as a plan for compliance with 10 the decision of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 11 Commission's decision regarding Naval Air Station Oceana; 12 and 13 WHEREAS, one of the components of the said plan 14 consists of Ordinance No. 2907 (the "APZ-1 Ordinance"), 15 which establishes restrictions upon certain development in 16 Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ-1); and 17 WHEREAS, another of the components of the said 18 compliance plan consists of the APZ-1 Use and Acquisition 19 Plan, dated December 14, 2005, pursuant to which the City, 20 in the interest of fair treatment of affected property 21 owners, has established categories of property within APZ-1 22 and will offer to purchase property within certain of those 23 categories; and 24 WHEREAS, on this day the City Council has amended the 25 APZ-1 Ordinance so as to place the identical restrictions 26 contained therein upon development in Clear Zones; and 27 WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the 28 owners of property in Clear Zones should be provided the 29 same opportunities as the owners of property in APZ-1 equal 30 treatment in light of the fact the restrictions upon 31 development in Clear Zones are identical to those applying 32 in APZ-1; 33 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF 34 THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 35 That the APZ-1 Use and Acquisition Plan, dated 36 December 14, 2005, is hereby amended and reordained, as the 37 "APZ-1/Clear Zone Use And Acquisition Plan," by the 38 addition of the underlined portions and the deletion of the 39 stricken portions shown on that certain document entitled 40 "APZ-1/CLEAR ZONE USE AND ACQUISITION PLAN," dated February 41 14, 2006, such document being attached hereto and made a 42 part hereof. 43 44 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach. 45 on the day of 2006. 46 47 CA-99408 48 OID\ordres\clearzoneacquispolicyordin.doc 49 February 2, 2006 50 R-1 51 52 2 53 Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: 54 55 / 56 j 57 w / 58 City ttorney's Office n t- OUR MAt`Aj" CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH February 14, 2006 APZ-1 /CLEAR ZONE USE AND ACQUISITION PLAN Overview The APZ-1 Ordinance (adopted December 20, 2005 and revised to include Clear Zones) amended the City Zoning Ordinance to prohibit all uses in APZ-1 and Clear Zones that are incompatible with OPNAV Instruction 11010.36B (December 19, 2002) (the "OPNAV Instruction"). The APZ-1 Ordinance renders existing uses non -conforming but not incompatible, and requires all new development or redevelopment to be consistent with the OPNAV Instruction. As an exception, the Ordinance allows incompatible uses or structures as a replacement of the same use or structure if the replacement use or structure is of equal or lesser density or intensity than the original use or structure. Where application of the APZ-1 Ordinance leaves property without a reasonable use, this APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan is intended to direct reuse, rezoning, or purchase of those properties. The Plan The Use and Acquisition Plan is illustrated in the following chart entitled "APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan." 1 APZ-I/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan Tools Develop with Rezone or grant Voluntary acquisition Eminent domain compatible use conditional use permit Property Type ("CUP") for compatible use ONRESIDENTIAL Developed Owner's choice. Owner's choice. Owner Yes. ""Owner has No. Owner has Already developed can initiate application for development options development options for use is "not new compatible use. City for reasonable use, to compatible and incompatible" and can will not initiate rezoning City.need not reasonable use. City remain, or owner can because owner has acquire. But if need not acquire. redevelop with a existing use and other initiated by.owner;, different compatible allowable, compatible City:may acquire to, use. reasonable uses. rollback!"', devel©prrient. . Undeveloped Yes. Owner can Yes. Owner can initiate No. Generally, owner No. Owner has initiate development application for has development development options for to a compatible use. compatible use. City options for reasonable compatible and Every nonresidential need not initiate rezoning use, and City need not reasonable use. City zoning category because owner may seek acquire. need not acquire. allows some approval for some But if property is left compatible & compatible & reasonable with no reasonable reasonable use. use. use, City will acquire: RESIDENTIAL Developed Not applicable because the property Yes. On case -by -case No. Existing use is No. Existing use is "not is already developed. basis. Owner can initiate "not incompatible," incompatible," thus City Existing uses are "not rezoning. thus City need not need not acquire. incompatible" so no acquire. action is needed. Except, if initiated by owner, City, will acquire "Qualifying" Duplex Properties for market value at time,... " of"sale; as ifthe APZ- I Grd': does not -apply Undeveloped No. There is no Yes. On case -by -case Yes. "But only if d es compatible use basis; depends on size, unsuitable forc�t��notp ssr'b without rezoning/ location and intended use rezoning/CUP andd' CUP. of parcel. Either owner only if APZ-1 rezon3 era ��= trise°ram or City can initiate Ordinance leaves luneutla rezoning. property without a p°� r`Q, eiv reasonable use. How each category of property will be affected: Plan. The following is a description of how each category of property will be treated under the NONRESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL — DEVELOPED Retain Existing Use or Develop Consistent with the OPNAV Instruction Developed Nonresidential/Commercial property within APZ-1 and Clear Zones would have some reasonable use under the new zoning rules. Owners of such property could retain their existing use, and they would also have other allowable compatible uses. Therefore, the owners of such property could keep their existing use or redevelop the property in any manner consistent with the OPNAV Instruction and the APZ-1 Ordinance, as amended. Such development might require a rezoning or conditional use permit, which would be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. • Voluntary Acquisition Available The City would be willing to purchase Developed Nonresidential/ Commercial property within APZ-1 and Clear Zones that are adversely affected by the APZ-1 Ordinance. Only voluntary sales would be permitted. Eminent domain would not be available for such acquisitions. NONRESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL — UNDEVELOPED • Develop Consistent with the OPNAV Instruction Most undeveloped Nonresidential/Commercial propertywithin APZ-1 and Clear Zones would have some reasonable use under the APZ-1 Ordinance. Therefore, the owners of such property could develop the property in any manner consistent with the OPNAV Instruction and the new APZ-1 Ordinance, as amended. Such development might require a rezoning or conditional use permit, which would be individually evaluated on the merits of each case. • Voluntary Acquisition Generally Unavailable Because most such properties will be left with some reasonable use, the City will not acquire them. If a property is deprived of all reasonable use, then the City will acquire it. 3 RESIDENTIAL — DEVELOPED • Existing Dwellings Will Remain Residential developed property would be considered to be a preexisting use and would be allowed to remain. Under the APZ- I Ordinance, as amended, the property may be replaced, repaired, reconstructed, or otherwise improved, so long as the density is not increased. • Redevelopment to Compatible Use, Case -By -Case If the owner of residential developed property wanted to rezone the property or seek a conditional use permit to a traditionally compatible use such as industrial, such redirected uses would be welcomed, so long as the fit was right with the neighborhood. These redevelopments would be handled on a case -by -case basis and would be initiated by the owner. • Dwellings Will Not Be Acquired Eminent domain would not be available for developed residential properties under any circumstances. Dwellings generally will not be acquired by voluntary purchase; however, voluntary acquisition will be available in the limited circumstances of "Qualifying Duplex Properties" as that term is defined on Page 6. RESIDENTIAL — UNDEVELOPED • Rezone/Conditional Use Permit (CUP), If Appropriate After the APZ-I Ordinance went into effect, some undeveloped residential properties will be left with no reasonable compatible use. Such property could be rezoned or issued a conditional use permit on a case -by -case basis, but certain properties might not be suitable for any nonresidential use. The City would first evaluate whether a rezoning or conditional use permit would be appropriate. • Acquire By Agreement or Condemnation If there are no suitable nonresidential uses, the City would acquire the property because the owner would be left without any reasonable use of its property. Either voluntary purchase or eminent domain would be available. If the City were unable to reach an agreement as to value with the owner, the City could condemn the property. QUALIFYING DUPLEX PROPERTIES • VoluntarAcquisition Available The City would be willing to purchase "Qualifying Duplex Properties" within APZ-1 and Clear Zones, as defined and described on Page 6. Eminent domain would not be available for such acquisitions. Acquisition Rules. Voluntary Acquisitions. Affected Property: Property located wholly or partially within APZ-1 and/or Clear Zones that is (a) undeveloped property which is currently zoned for residential use, or (b) developed commercial property. For the Voluntary Purchase Program for Qualifying Duplex Properties in APZ-1 and Clear Zones, see Page 6. Owner -initiated sales only for nonresidential property. Developed commercial property will be acquired only if the owner of the property initiates the sale. Fee Simple or Development Rights/Easements To Be Acquired. The City might acquire either fee simple title, restrictive easements or development rights. In certain cases (for example large lots) the City might want to acquire the land in fee so that the property could be acquired and put to some compatible use. In other cases (for example small infill lots in residential neighborhoods where the owner owns an adjacent, developed lot) the City might want to acquire only development rights. The City would add as a condition to its acquisition of only the development rights that the adjacent owner must resubdivide the property to remove lot lines and create one larger lot. In other words, the City would avoid buying in fee small lots in neighborhoods where it is possible to pay only for the development rights and have the adjacent owner fold the property into his existing use. The object is to avoid City -owned vacant lots that would be difficult to maintain and could adversely affect the neighborhood. The goal would be for the City and the owner to work together to find a solution that compensates the owner and makes the most sense in the context of the neighborhood. City to Pay Market Value Without Regard to APZ-1 Ordinance for Undeveloped Residential Land. Owners of residential property (undeveloped residential land) will be paid market value based on sales of similar properties that are not within APZ-1 and Clear Zones, so there is no "blight" on the value of their property. The property will be valued as if the APZ-1 Ordinance's prohibition against new residential development does not apply. Cib�to Pay Market Value for Commercial Properties. Owners who sell their commercial property to the City will be paid based on fair market value, with consideration given for the limitations and provisions of the APZ-1 Ordinance and the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. Voluntary Purchase Program for Qualifying Duplex Properties in APZ-1 and Clear Zones 1. Application. This program applies only to properties that meet the following criteria ("Qualifying Duplex Properties"): a. Located in APZ-1 and/or Clear Zone; b. Currently improved with a single-family home; and c. Duplex use was legally and physically possible before the adoption of the APZ-1 Ordinance (zoning district allowed "by -right" duplex development; physical features made duplex use a reasonable option; and there were no title restrictions preventing duplex use). 2. Voluntary Purchase Program. a. Fee Simple/Total Purchase only. The City will purchase, by voluntary agreement, the lot and all improvements from the owner. b. Valuation. As compensation, the City will pay the market value of the property and improvements at their highest and best use at the time of sale (i.e., higher of value as single-family residence or duplex) as if the APZ-1 Ordinance's prohibition against new residential development does not apply. c. Appraisal. The City will pay for an appraisal of the property, after the City and the owner have agreed on an appraiser. 3. Citv's Options after Purchase. After purchase of a Qualifying Duplex Property, the City shall rezone the property or otherwise eliminate the potential for duplex development, and do any of the following to be determined on a case -by -case basis: a. Sell the house and lot to a third party as excess property for continued use as a single-family home; b. Lease the house and property to a third party for residential use; c. Demolish the improvements and sell the lot to adjacent landowners; or d. Rezone the property, if appropriate, to a nonresidential zoning classification and sell or lease the property for new development compatible with the OPNAV Instruction. 6 If the City decides to proceed under part 3a or 3b above, it is the City's intent to cause noise attenuation measures to be performed on the single-family home, prior to occupancy. Involuntary Acquisitions/Eminent Domain Affected Property. Eminent domain will only be used to acquire undeveloped property zoned for residential use, only if the property has no other reasonable use and only after efforts to voluntarily purchase the property have failed. State legislation needed. State enabling legislation will be needed before condemnation can be used. The City has requested state legislation that gives the City the power to condemn, and condemnation will only be allowed for the following circumstances: • Only for undeveloped property zoned for residential use. • Only where property is deprived of all reasonable use. • Only where development rights have not vested. • Only for property wholly or partially within APZ-1 and Clear Zones. • Only after all efforts to reach a voluntary sale have been unsuccessful. • Only so long as acquisition is needed to protect NAS Oceana as a Master Jet Base. Rights to be Acquired. Either development rights or fee simple rights would be acquired, depending on the particular circumstances of each property. Where the owner owns developed adjacent property, acquiring development rights only will be favored. City to Pay Full Fair Market Value. Where eminent domain is authorized, Owners will be paid fair market value based on sales of similar properties that are not within APZ-1 or Clear Zones. The property will be valued as if the APZ-1 Ordinance does not apply. Plan is Flexible The preceding guidelines shall be followed in implementing the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan, except where circumstances dictate other options particular to a specific property. In such cases, the City will consider other options only when (i) the proposed option is consistent with the intent to stop development incompatible with the OPNAV Instruction; (ii) the proposed option "rolls back" existing non -conforming uses by eliminating the use or reducing the density or intensity of the use; or (iii) no other reasonable, compatible use for the property is allowed; provided, that the option, in the judgment of City Council, does not have an unduly adverse impact on adjacent properties. Other possible options: The City Manager is directed to continue the consideration and development of other methods of converting uses in APZ-1 and Clear Zones that do not conform to the OPNAV Instruction to uses compatible with the OPNAV Instruction. Such other options shall have the effect of accomplishing the intent of the APZ-1 Ordinance and the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan and reducing uses not conforming with the OPNAV Instruction within APZ-1 and Clear Zones whenever reasonable and feasible. Options considered shall include, but not be limited to, assemblage of property for redevelopment, the use of Economic Development Incentive Program funds and the use of zoning and land use incentives. Implementation instructions: I. Notification This Plan is effective as of December 20, 2005. This Plan amendment to include Clear Zones is effective upon adoption. Thereafter, the City staff shall, within sixty (60) days, identify all property within Clear Zones and notify the property owners by certified letter of the APZ-1 Ordinance, the classifications of property under the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan, and provide the owners with a copy of the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan. II. Purchase Beginning January 1, 2006, property owners desiring to sell their property consistent with the provisions of the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan shall notify the City Manager by letter. Letters received shall be date -stamped and priority of purchase shall be by date received, earliest to latest, except that (1) properties left without a reasonable use shall be given first priority; and (2) City Council may elevate the priority of property owners who suffer a demonstrated hardship if an expedited sale would ameliorate such hardship. Purchases of eligible property shall be made in such order, upon approval of the City Council, to the extent that funds are available each fiscal year. Annual Report The City Manager shall report annually to the City Council on the status of all uses not conforming with the OPNAV Instruction within APZ-1 and Clear Zones. The format of the report shall include an inventory ofproperty within each classification under the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan. Funding The City Manager is directed each fiscal year to include in the City's annual budget funds for the purpose of acquiring properties within APZ-1 and Clear Zones designated for acquisition under the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan in the amount of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000.00) or such greater amount as circumstances may warrant. Any proceeds the City receives from selling or leasing properties acquired under this APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan shall be deposited into the APZ-1/Clear Zone acquisition fund. If in any fiscal year there remains an amount available after the purchase of properties within APZ-1 and Clear Zones, such funds shall be used to purchase properties to be acquired in the Interfacility Traffic Area for purposes other than the Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt Project. Plan Administration The City Manager may promulgate rules, regulations and policies consistent with the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan to further the efficient implementation and administration of this Plan. F:\Data\ATY\OID\REAL ESTATE\Assorted Projects\BRAC\APZ-1 Clear Zone Use & Acq Plan 2-14-06.doc CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH BeEembeF 20, 20a6 February 14, 2006 APZ-1- APZ-1 /CLEAR ZONE USE AND ACQUISITION PLAN Overview a�/adopted December 20_ 2005 and revised to include Clear Zones The APZ-1 Ordinance �—__.._ and revised _ __ __ include __ ___ _ amended the City Zoning Ordinance to prohibit all uses in APZ-1 and Clear ,ones that are incompatible with OPNAV Instruction 11010.36B (December 19, 2002) (the "OPNAV Instruction"). The AP7 1 Ordinance renders existing uses non -conforming but not incompatible, and requires all new development or redevelopment to be consistent with the OPNAV Instruction. As an exception, the Ordinance allows incompatible uses or structures as a replacement of the same use or structure if the replacement use or structure is of equal or lesser density or intensity than the original use or structure. Where application of the APZ-1 Ordinance leaves property without a reasonable use, this APZ 1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan is intended to direct reuse, rezoning, or purchase of those properties. The Plan The Use and Acquisition Plan is illustrated in the following chart entitled "APZ-1 /Clear Z.nne Use and Acquisition Plan." APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan Tools Develop with Rezone or grant Voluntary acquisition Eminent domain compatible use conditional use permit Property Typ I I ("CUP") for compatible use ONRESIDENTIAL Developed Owner's choice. Owner's choice. Owner Yes. Owner has No. Owner has Already developed use can initiate application for development options development options for is "not incompatible" new compatible use. City for reasonableuse, sIo l compatible and reasonable and can remain, or will not initiate rezoning City, need notacquire'. .. use. City need not owner can redevelop because owner has existing But if initiates by acquire. with a different use and other allowable, owner, City triay compatible use. compatible reasonable uses. acquue.to "roll back' Undeveloped Yes. Owner can initiate Yes. Owner can initiate development to a application for compatible compatible use. Every use. City need not initiate nonresidential zoning rezoning because owner category allows some may seek approval for compatible & some compatible & reasonable use. reasonable use. RESIDENTIAL Not applicable because Yes. On case -by -case Developed the property is already y ibasis. Owner can initiate developed. Existing uses are "not rezoning. incompatible" so no action is needed. Undeveloped No. There is no Yes. On case -by -case compatible use without basis; depends on size, rezoning/ CUP. location and intended use of parcel. Either owner or City can initiate rezoning. Generally, owner development options reasonable use, and y need not acquire. No. Existing use is "not incompatible," thus City need not No. Owner has development options for compatible and reasonable use. City need not acquire. No. Existing use is "not incompatible," thus City need not acquire. How each category of property will be affected: The following is a description of how each category of property will be treated under the Plan. NONRESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL — DEVELOPED Retain Existing Use or Develop Consistent with the OPNAV Instruction Developed Nonresidential/Commercial property within APZ-1 and Clear Zones would have some reasonable use under the new zoning rules. Owners of such property could retain their existing use, and they would also have other allowable compatible uses. Therefore, the owners of such property could keep their existing use or redevelop the property in any manner consistent with the OPNAV Instruction and the ne APZ-1 Ordinance, as amended. Such development might require a rezoning or conditional use permit, which would be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Voluntary Acquisition Available The City would be willing to purchase Developed Nonresidential/ Commercial property within APZ-1 and Clear Zones that are adversely affected by the APZ-1 Ordinance. Only voluntary sales would be permitted. Eminent domain would not be available for such acquisitions. NONRESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL — UNDEVELOPED Develop Consistent with the OPNAV Instruction Most undeveloped Nonresidential/Commercial property within APZ-1 and Clear Zones would have some reasonable use under the APZ-1 Ordinance. Therefore, the owners of such property could develop the property in any manner consistent with the OPNAV Instruction and the new APZ-1 Ordinance .�as amended. Such development might require a rezoning or conditional use permit, which would be individually evaluated on the merits of each case. Voluntary Acquisition Generally Unavailable Because most such properties will be left with some reasonable use, the City will not acquire them. If a property is deprived of all reasonable use, then the City will acquire it. RESIDENTIAL — DEVELOPED Existing Dwellings Will Remain Residential developed property would be considered to be a preexisting use and would be allowed to remain. Under the APZ-1 Ordinance, as amended. the property may be replaced, repaired, reconstructed, or otherwise improved, so long as the density is not increased. Redevelopment to Compatible Use, Case -By -Case If the owner of residential developed property wanted to rezone the property or seek a conditional use permit to a traditionally compatible use such as industrial, such redirected uses would be welcomed, so long as the fit was right with the neighborhood. These redevelopments would be handled on a case -by -case basis and would be initiated by the owner. Dwellings Will Not Be Acquired Eminent domain would not be available for developed residential properties under any circumstances. Dwellings generally will not be acquired by voluntary purchase; however, voluntary acquisition will be available in the limited circumstances of "Qualifying Duplex Properties" as that term is defined on Page 6. RESIDENTIAL — UNDEVELOPED Rezone/Conditional Use Permit (CUP), If Appropriate After the APZ-1 Ordinance goes inte ff et there will be . eempatible use a, aila le r - went into effect, some undeveloped residential properties will be left with no reasonable compatible use. Such property could be rezoned or issued a conditional use permit on a case -by -case basis, but certain properties might not be suitable for any nonresidential use. The City would first evaluate whether a rezoning or conditional use permit would be appropriate. Acquire By Agreement or Condemnation If there are no suitable nonresidential uses, the City would acquire the property because the owner would be left without any reasonable use of its property. Either voluntary purchase or eminent domain would be available. If the City were unable to reach an agreement as to value with the owner, the City could condemn the property. QUALIFYING DUPLEX PROPERTIES Voluntary Acquisition Available The City would be willing to purchase "Qualifying Duplex Properties" within APZ-1 and C lear Zones, as defined and described on Page 6. Eminent domain would not be available for such acuiskien ac�nici ion . Acquisition Rules. Voluntary Acquisitions. Affected Property: Property located wholly or partially within APZ-1 and/or Clear Zones that is (a) undeveloped property which is currently zoned for residential use, or (b) developed commercial property. For the Voluntary Purchase Program for Qualifying Duplex Properties in APZ-1 and Clear Zones, see Page 6. Owner -initiated sales only for nonresidential property. Developed commercial property will be acquired only if the owner of the property initiates the sale. Fee Simple or Development Rights/Easements To Be Acquired. The City might acquire either fee simple title, restrictive easements or development rights. In certain cases (for example large lots) the City might want to acquire the land in fee so that the property could be acquired and put to some compatible use. In other cases (for example small infill lots in residential neighborhoods where the owner owns an adjacent, developed lot) the City might want to acquire only development rights. The City would eensider- addiug add as a condition to its acquisition of only the development rights that the adjacent owner must resubdivide the property to remove lot lines and create one larger lot. In other words, the City would avoid buying in fee small lots in neighborhoods where it is possible to pay only for the development rights and have the adjacent owner fold the property into his existing use. The object is to avoid City -owned vacant lots that would be difficult to maintain and could adversely affect the neighborhood. The goal would be for the City and the owner to work together to find a solution that compensates the owner and makes the most sense in the context of the neighborhood. City to Pay Market Value Without Regard to APZ-1 Ordinance for Undeveloped Residential Land. Owners of residential property (undeveloped residential land) will be paid market value based on sales of similar properties that are not within APZ-1 and Clear Zones, so there is no "blight" on the value of their property. The property will be valued as if the APZ-1 Ordinance's prohibition against new residential development does not apply. City to Pay Market Value for Commercial Properties. Owners who sell their commercial property to the City will be paid based on fair market value, with consideration given for the limitations and provisions of the APZ-1 Ordinance and the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. Voluntary Purchase Program for Qualifying Duplex Properties in APZ-1 and Clear Zones 1. implication. This program applies anly to properties that meet the following criteria ("Qualifying Duplex Properties"): a. Located in APZ-1 and/or Clear Zone; b. Currently improved with a single-family home; and c. Duplex use was legally and physically possible before the adoption of the APZ-1 Ordinance (zoning district allowed "by -right" duplex development; physical features made duplex use a reasonable option; and there were no title restrictions preventing duplex use). 2. Voluntary Purchase Program. a. Fee Simple/Total Purchase only. The City will purchase, by voluntary agreement, the lot and all improvements from the owner. b. Valuation. As compensation, the City will pay the market value of the property and improvements at their highest and best use at the time of sale (i.e., higher of value as single-family residence or duplex) as if the APZ-1 Ordinance's prohibition against new residential development does not apply. c. Appraisal. The City will pay for an appraisal of the property, after the City and the owner have agreed on an appraiser. 3. City's Options after Purchase. After purchase of a Qualifying Duplex Property, the City shall rezone the property or otherwise eliminate the potential for duplex development, and do any of the following to be determined on a case -by -case basis: a. Sell the house and lot to a third party as excess property for continued use as a single-family home; b. Lease the house and property to a third party for residential use; c. Demolish the improvements and sell the lot to adjacent landowners; or d. Rezone the property, if appropriate, to a nonresidential zoning classification and sell or lease the property for new development compatible with the OPNAV Instruction. If the City decides to proceed under part 3a or 3b above, it is the City's intent to cause noise attenuation measures to be performed on the single-family home, prior to occupancy. Involuntary Acquisitions/Eminent Domain Affected Property. Eminent domain will only be used to acquire undeveloped property zoned for residential use, only if the property has no other reasonable use and only after efforts to voluntarily purchase the property have failed. State legislation needed. State enabling legislation will be needed before condemnation can be used. The City Ail! r-eques has renuested state legislation that gives the City the power to condemn, and condemnation will only be allowed for the following circumstances: Only for undeveloped property zoned for residential use. Only where property is deprived of all reasonable use. Only where development rights have not vested. Only for property wholly or partially within APZ-1 and Clear Zones. Only after all efforts to reach a voluntary sale have been unsuccessful. Only so long as acquisition is needed to protect NAS Oceana as a Master Jet Base. Rights to be Acquired. Either development rights or fee simple rights would be acquired, depending on the particular circumstances of each property. Where the owner owns developed adjacent property, acquiring development rights only will be favored. City to Pay Full Fair Market Value. Where eminent domain is authorized, Owners will be paid fair market value based on sales of similar properties that are not within APZ-1 or Clear Zones. The property will be valued as if the APZ-1 Ordinance does not apply. Plan is Flexible The preceding guidelines shall be followed in implementing the APZ-1LC1ear_7.mm Use and Acquisition Plan, except where circumstances dictate other options particular to a specific property. In such cases, the City will consider other options only when (i) the proposed option is consistent with the intent to stop development incompatible with the OPNAV Instruction; (ii) the proposed option "rolls back" existing non -conforming uses by eliminating the use or reducing the density or intensity of the use; or (iii) no other reasonable, compatible use for the property is allowed; provided, that the option, in the judgment of City Council, does not have an unduly adverse impact on adjacent properties. Other possible options: The City Manager is directed to continue the consideration and development of other methods of converting uses in APZ-1 and Clear Zones that do not conform to the OPNAV Instruction to uses compatible with the OPNAV Instruction. Such other options shall have the effect of accomplishing the intent of the APZ-1 Ordinance and the APZ-1 /Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan and reducing uses not conforming with the OPNAV Instruction within APZ-1 and Clear Zones whenever reasonable and feasible. Options considered shall include, but not be limited to, assemblage of property for redevelopment, the use of Economic Development Incentive Program funds and the use of zoning and land use incentives. Implementation instructions: I. Notification This Plan shall take-e€feet is effective as of December 20, 2005, This Plan amendment to include Clear Zones is effective upon adoption. Thereafter, the City staff shall, within sixty (60) days, identify all property within APZ-1 Clear Zones and notify the property eA%eowners by certified letter of the APZ-1 Ordinance, the elassi�ea classifications of the property under the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan, and provide the ewer owners with a copy of the APZ-1X1n Zone Use and Acquisition Plan. II. Purchase Beginning January 1, 2006, property owners desiring to sell their property consistent with the provisions of the APZ-1/C1ear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan shall notify the City Manager by letter. Letters received shall be date -stamped and priority of purchase shall be by date received, earliest to latest, except that (1) properties left without a reasonable use shall be given first priority; and (2) City Council may elevate the priority of property owners who suffer a demonstrated hardship if an expedited sale would ameliorate such hardship. Purchases of eligible property shall be made in such order, upon approval of the City Council, to the extent that funds are available each fiscal year. Annual Report The City Manager shall report annually to the City Council on the status of all uses not conforming with the OPNAV Instruction within APZ-1 and Clear Zones. The format of the report shall include an inventory of property within each classification under the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan. Funding The City Manager is directed each fiscal year to include in the City's annual budget funds for the purpose of acquiring properties within APZ-1 and Clear Zones designated for acquisition under the APZ-1/C1ear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan in the amount of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000.00) or such greater amount as circumstances may warrant. Any proceeds the City receives from selling or leasing properties acquired under this APZ4 1/Clear Z_om Use and Acquisition Plan shall be deposited into the APZ41/ .lear .m= acquisition fund. If in any fiscal year there remains an amount available after the purchase of properties within APZ-1 and Clear Z,o=, such funds shall be used to purchase properties to be acquired in the Interfacility Traffic Area for purposes other than the Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt Project. Plan Administration The City Manager may promulgate rules, regulations and policies consistent with the APZ-1/ lear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan to farther the efficient implementation and administration of this Plan. F:\Data\ATY\OID\REAL ESTATE\Assorted Projects\BRAC This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - original document : F:\DATA\ATY\OID\REAL ESTATE\ASSORTED PROJECTS\BRAC\ACQUISITION PLAN BRAC RESPONSE 12-20- 05.DOC and revised document: F:\DATA\ATY\OID\REAL ESTATE\ASSORTED PROJECTS\BRAC\APZ-1 CLEAR ZONE USE & ACQ PLAN 2-14- 06.130C CompareRite found 50 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions appear as Bold+Db1 Underline text K. APPOINTMENTS BEACHES and WATERWAYS COMMISSION INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE— PPEA MEAL TAX TASK FORCE RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAITON (VBCDC) UNFINISHED BUSINESS M. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consider RESCHEDULING the regular Session of City Council a. May 2, 2006 Councilmanic Election N. ADJOURNMENT RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC CITY CLERK PHONE (757) 427-4303 • FAX (757) 426.5669 City cW Virginia Beach 8 February 2006 Honorable Mayor Members of City Council CITY HALL • BLDG. 1, STE. 281 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456-9005 The 2006 Councilmanic Election on May 2"d falls on a regularly scheduled date for City Council Sessions and the "open mike"for citizens. Due to numerous items pending which need to be scheduled in advance and planning items to be advertised, it is necessary to ascertain your pleasure at this time whether to CANCEL or RESCHEDULE these Sessions. This matter will be under New Business on the February 14`" Agenda. Respect ully yours, CC: City Manager Rut Hodges Smith, MMC City Attorney City Clerk MINUTES VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Virginia Beach, Virginia 7 February 2006 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf called to order the CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING re the update on the VIRGINIA AQUARIUM EXHIBIT in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 2: 30 P.M. Council Members Present: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Absent: Richard A. Maddox [Entered; 2: 50 P.M/ Jim Reeve [Entered: 2: 40 P.M.] -2- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING VIRGINIA AQUARIUM EXHIBIT Update 2:30 P.M. ITEM # 54870 Lynn Clements, Director — Museum and Cultural Arts, and Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center, introduced the following in attendance: Russell Turner, Director of Development — Virginia Aquarium, Maylon White, General Curator- Virginia Aquarium, Brad Converse, Architect, Chermayeff, Sollogub and Poole and Peter Sollogub, Project Architect — Chermayeff, Sollogub and Poole, as well as Tom Fraim — President — Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center Foundation. The twenty -year - old exhibits are being renovated and scheduled for opening March 2008. This public/private partnership has been successful. The City owns and operates the building and the exhibits are owned by the Foundation, a 501(c)3 Corporation. Approximately sixty (60) members, the majority business individuals who bring great resources, comprise the Foundation. Mr. Fraim accompanied Ms. Clements to the Shed Aquarium in Chicago for a meeting of all the Aquarium Directors in the United States. Mr. Fraim also went to Boston to meet the Architects. He is thoroughly committed. The City's Capital Improvement Program funds will be combined with those of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The construction document phase of this exhibit renovation is now commenced. The Foundation is building an extension to the Aquarium's boat dock to enable the new Virginia Wesleyan Research Vessel to dock. An Animal Care building is being donated, until the Aquarium's building is completed. The Foundation has funded Crocodile School, located in Florida, to train the staff. Tom Fraim, President - Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center Foundation, advised the Foundation is in the middle of the $25 MILLION Campaign and they are now over the magic $20- MILLION mark ($20-1/2 MILLION). Members of the Foundation and City representatives were in attendance during the General Assembly session. $2-MILLION is being requested from the Commonwealth. Mr. Fraim feels confident a majority of these funds will be allocated. A $1-MILLION gift contribution has been received from the Batten family. $150,000 of their commitment is to be allocated for a portion of the Virginia Wesleyan Research Vessel. The remaining $850, 000 will be utilized for collaborative research with Virginia Wesleyan and Old Dominion University. The Foundation has also submitted a grant application with the National Science Foundation for electronic research equipment for this Vessel. The Aquarium is a World Class facility as exemplified by employees of Virginia Aquarium. Susan Barco is teaching in Alaska. Mark Swingle is speaking in Galveston, Texas, re husbandry of the sea turtle. Through the American Zoological and Aquarium Association, the Virginia Aquarium's protocol for husbandry ofsea turtles will be adopted throughout the United States. Peter Sollogub advised his firm has worked with aquariums around the world. Three (3) significant events occurred in the middle Atlantic and South. In May, the Aquarium in Tennessee expanded by opening the Oceans Journey building with a 4,000 square foot Gulf Tank exhibit. One of the largest Aquariums in the United States opened in October in Georgia. In November, the National Aquarium's Exhibit, consisting of the new Australian exhibit, opened. In September, Lynn Clements, Maylon White and Peter Sollogub attended the American Association of Zoos and Aquarium Convention in Chicago. This attendance advised exhibit should convey the messages of conservation, education and stewardship to a new generation entering the 21s' Century. To develop this message, an exhibit methodology must consist of emotion, storytelling, immersion, surprise and technology. Mr. Sollogub referenced the "tour commences at the front door". On the right side will be a new gift shop, employing the newest techniques of the retail component. A new ticketing area will be on the left side. The attendees will be entering a bright new space. Moving beyond, the participants will enter a Global Gallery. This five (5) foot globe has a technology depicting the location of storms, weather patterns, planets and can also be utilized interactively to discuss Virginia 2-Million years ago. Proceeding from the Global Gallery, the first major story "water" will commence: the Upland River Gallery ultimately to the Ocean. The Upland River Gallery will be enhanced with moving water and waterfalls. February 7, 2006 -3- CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING VIRGINIA AQUARIUMEXHIBIT Update ITEM # 54870 (Continued) The next exhibit will be the Fall Zone. This Aquarium Tank will again have a waterfall containing various species. This Exhibit will extend the story of water. The Coastal River will consist of planting and indigenous species. The visitor will then embark to the Bridge Gallery. There will be a corridor depicting the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. The visitors will be underneath the Bridge Tunnel, hearing the rumble of vehicles above. The Chesapeake Bay Gallery will consist of a series of exhibits "hands on " encompassing the inhabitants, places, technology, sciences and industries. The Chesapeake Ray Touch Tank (60,000 gallons) is a renovation of the existing touch tank. This tank will afford the challenged an opportunity to participate and provide better access for all individuals. The visitor will literally be on the Beach. The Ray Touch Tank is now under construction. A large gray tank will be placed at the base of the existing circular window, allowing visitors to go around the tank and "walk" into the circular window, coming `.face to face" with the turtles. Ray chandeliers will be on the ceiling. This great space will be devoted to touching and learning about Rays. Proceeding to the Norfolk Canyon will complete the `Journey of Water". The Restless Planet encompasses Virginia's heritage and approximately 10,000 square feet. An introduction gallery will set the scene. A Southeast Asia Peat Swamp will be depicted. 300-MILLION years ago Dante, Virginia, was a tropical rain forest. The visitors will be struck by the change in temperature, very high humidity. A large leafy canopy will be above and the rumble of thunder will be heard. The floor will be "squishy ". Different tanks will be featured. A signature species, the Tomistoma, which grows to approximately twelve (12) feet in length, is one of the principal characters featured and will be slithering around in the mud banks. From this exhibit, the visitors will enter the first of two (2) highly interactive science shacks. The Coastal Desert will greet the visitor with a blast of dry heat. A brilliant searing blue sky will be overhead. Salt formations, in terms of the topography will be above; below and beside the visitor with cloud formations will be overhead. A tremendous array of species such as the seahorse, cobra and cuttlefish, will encompass this exhibit. The Conservation Station will feature a tent inside the building. This will be utilized for demonstration of various animals and technologies, allowing the guests to participate in a "hands-on " experience. As the visitors enter the Red Sea, they will leave the heat and begin to feel the cool. Rock formations are indigenous of an underwater reef A spectacular live coral aquarium will greet the visitor. The Red Sea Aquarium to the right is over 100,000 gallons (approximately twice the size of the Chesapeake Bay Tank). As this Aquarium has a tunnel, the visitor will be completely surrounded by water. An Eagle Ray, with a wingspan of six (6) feet will appear in the Red Sea Aquarium. The second the Science Shacks will be the next destination. This Shack will explain ocean rifting, as well as volcanism. The South Pacific Volcanic Island, Mount Rogers, Virginia, was volcanic approximately 500- MILLION years ago. The rumble of volcanoes will be heard. A thick leafy canopy will be overhead. Special animals will inhabit this exhibit. The Komodo Dragon, which is up to ten (10) feet in length, is the key feature. The Reflection Gallery is the final exhibit. The visitor becomes part of the aura and beauty of what has been seen. The design development documents have just been completed and construction documents are in process. Mr. Sollogub displayed the model which will be utilized in the construction of the habitats. This model will be available in Virginia Beach by late Spring or early Summer. The Ray Touch Tank is now under construction. Bidding and negotiations for the general contractor will occur during the Summer. The Aquarium, as has been planned, will be developing a phasing structure so operation of the facility will be continuous throughout the construction. General construction will continue through December 2007 with animal introduction in the late Winter and early Spring 2008. The Grand Opening is estimated to be March 2008. February 7, 2006 CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING VIRGINIAAQUARIUM EXUIBIT Update ITEM # 54870 (Continued) Concerning the review of the United States' ten (10) top Aquariums appearing in USA Today, the Virginia Aquarium did not appear on this list, which placement is determined by attendance numbers. Mrs. Clements advised the goal of the Virginia Aquarium is 1-MILLION attendance. Visitor attendance is the basis of the top 10 list. At the present time, the Aquarium has an attendance of 600, 000. Mr. Sollogub was confident the facilities will be able to accommodate the crowds. February 7, 2006 -5- CITYCOUNCIL LIAISONREP ORTS 3:30 P.M. ITEM # 54871 Council Members Wilson and Villanueva, Legislative Coordination Liaisons, advised they had dinner with the Legislators on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 With the exception of Delegates Terrie L. Suit and Harry R. `Bob "Purkey, all were in attendance. However, Delegates Suit and Purkey's Aides were present. Delegate Cosgrove from Chesapeake also represents a portion of Virginia Beach and was in attendance. Council Lady Wilson referenced an inquiry from a Vienna, Virginia, Council Lady. She was very concerned re the Telecommunications Bill and referenced a 1930 Bill in Paragraph 3, which stated a franchise was not necessary. This Bill is `grandfathered in" the franchise. Deputy Attorney William Macali advised the City has an existing cable franchise. The City specifically requested a `grandfather clause " be inserted, which states the City can utilize their franchise as a baseline for new franchises. Councilman Villanueva referenced: Resolution in OPPOSITION to Senate Bill No. 87 and House Bill No. 665 re permits for the selective pruning of certain vegetation in areas around billboards. (Sponsored by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Council Lady Reba S. McClanan and Council Lady Rosemary Wilson). (ADOPTED: January 24, 2006) Councilman Villanueva advised many of the Delegates and Senators are supportive of property rights and believe the Billboards are the property of private business entities (such as Adams Advertising). Councilman Villanueva understood there is a movement to support Senate Bill No. 87 and House Bill No. 665. Council Lady Wilson conferred with each of the Legislators and explained the City's position. This did not seem to change their minds. All citizens should contact their Legislators relative this important issue. Mayor Oberndorf advised the City has never planted trees in front of a Billboard. The City's trees are in the median, not on private land in front of their Billboards. Delegate Tata and Mrs. Blevins tried to convince her husband, Senator Blevins to "look out for the trees ". Council Lady McClanan believes the Legislators are deliberately misinterpreting the intent. Council Lady McClanan expressed concern as citizens telephone calls in support had not been received. Deputy City Attorney Macali advised he forwarded to the Legislators a photograph taken from the westbound lane, looking through the trees. The billboards are visible. No one would have a difficult time reading the message on any billboard. Councilman Villanueva advised all of the Legislators are grappling with the issue of transportation and this Session might be a replay of two (2) years ago with the Budget debate. The Legislative Liaisons discovered there might be an extension of this Session due to conflict with transportation. One Bill of particular interest is a Governor's Bill sponsored by Senator Wagner allowing localities the authorization to place tolls on existing roads. Senator Nick Rerras is in opposition to a Bill regarding the utilizing of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Second Span Fund ($90-MILLION). These funds were raised by tolls throughout the years to build this Second Span. This is another access route for the northeasterners who come to Hampton Roads. Drastic relief is needed on Route I-264. There are eight (8) major Virginia Department of Transportation projects in Virginia Beach. The City Manager advised he attended the last Board Meeting of the Chamber of Commerce and they were discussing this Bill. The Chamber has not taken a position. February 7, 2006 WOE CITYCOUNCIL LIAISONREPORTS ITEM # 54871 (Continued) The City Manager advised James B. Ricketts, Director — Conventions and Visitors Bureau, because of the traffic surveys, has started advertising to come to Virginia Beach via 460 and Route 13. Traffic has replaced parking as the major irritant. If visitors cannot get into the Region, Virginia Beach is not going to be successful as a tourist destination. Mayor Oberndorf advised when the toll was removed from I-264, the State also took $11 MILLION and promised verbally these funds would be used for the improvement of I-264 when necessary. The City inquired of these funds, which appeared to exist no longer. The City Council ADOPTED a Resolution requesting citizens to vote affirmatively for the Hampton Roads Transportation Referendum re increasing the sales and use tax by one percent (1 %) and this revenue to be used solely for transportation improvements in this area (August 27, 2002). This Referendum was defeated. Mayor Oberndorf suggested a Summit re transportation be scheduled on a weekend. The General Assembly members would be invited to attend and explain their solutions to the public. The City Council could reiterate their proposals. The City Manager will assist with the scheduling of a Saturday date for the Transportation Summit and request Robert Matthias, Assistant to the City Manager, to confer with the Legislators concerning attendance of the majority. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (WO), the civic leagues and business representatives shall be invited. Vice Mayor Jones requested the City Manager provide information concerning the level of service on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. ITEM # 54873 Councilman Schmidt, Liaison to the LYNNHAVEN RIVER 2007, advised attending an Executive meeting on February 6, 2006. Their energy is continuous with nine (9) committees working diligently to move the process forward. Councilman Schmidt displayed a photo of the Committee's Flower and Garden Show Display in January 2006 entitled: Lynn's Haven. Fifty (50) volunteers and businesses contributed time and materials to this endeavor. Said report is hereby made apart of the record. ITEM # 54874 Councilman Maddox, Liaison to the CONVENTION CENTER, distributed his report: Project Budget: The project budget is $206,844,513. The work is currently progressing on budget and projected to be completed within this amount. Construction Status: The current amount of the Construction Management Agreement with Turner Construction is $159,323,058. As of January 31, 2006, the gross billings were $122,852,163 for completed work. Schedule: The current contract completion date for substantial completion of Phase IB is December 15, 2006 Turner is currently twelve (12) days behind schedule. The City Manager advised there are concerns relative the boardroom table design of the light which acts as a barrier to communication around the table. Altering the dimensions is being investigated. February 7, 2006 -7- CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS CffII/I"TA ITEM # 54875 Mayor Oberndorf expressed appreciation to the Public Works staff for their design of a very attractive sign, which points out the Elizabeth River as motorists cross the river bridge. A small ceremony was conducted during the installation of the sign. Virginia Beach works very hard, even though the majority of the pollution comes from other cities with major industrial complexes on the water. ITEM # 54876 Councilman Schmidt expressed appreciation to the Mayor and Councilman Dyer attending the Polar Plunge XIV between 6`h and 8`h Streets at the Virginia Beach Oceanfront, Saturday, February 4, 2006, at 2: 30 P.M. Over $505, 000 was raised for Special Olympics Virginia. Over 3, 000 plungers participated. The water was only 44 degrees. Mayor Oberndorf also expressed appreciation to the volunteers of the Rescue Squad and the approximately eighty (80) Divers who stood ready to assist in the event of emergencies. Maylon White, General Curator- Virginia Aquarium, was one of the Divers. February 7, 2006 Ma AGENDA REVIEW S ESSION 4: 05 P.M. ITEM # 54878 J.1. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to incorporate in the fiscal budget process consideration of a Public Safety pay and classification range plan to prevent future pay compression Councilman Diezel requested this item be ADOPTED AS REVISED* On Lines 14 and 15 after the verbiage "...safety pay and classification ranges". the following shall be inserted. "...utilizing the current City pay plans." Associate City Attorney Rod Ingram distributed the Revised Version. ITEM # 54879 BY CONSENSUS, these items shall compose the CONSENT AGENDA: J. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES 1. Resolution CALLING fora voter -initiated REFERENDUM to determine "is there a need"for a Redevelopment and Housing Authority. 2. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to incorporate in the fiscal budget process consideration of a Public Safety pay and classification range plan to prevent future pay compression. 3. Resolution to OUTLINE governing prequalification procedures of prospective contractors re construction contracts for complex projects. 4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to acquire property adjacent to the Lake Edward West Pump Station for the amount of $4, 000 and execute all necessary documents for the sale. 5. Ordinance to APPROPRLATE a $150,000 interest free loan with scheduled repayments re Atlantic Wildfowl Heritage Museum site improvements. (deferred January 31, 2006) 6. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $115, 000 from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to establish CIP funding for the Ferry Plantation House grant re restoration and landscaping. 7. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $51,375 to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget re the purchase of a Hazmat Communications System. February 7, 2006 A GENDA RE VIE W S ESSION ITEM # 54879 (Continued) 8. Ordinance to TRANSFER $320, 000 from the FY 2005-06 Operating Budget of the Tourism Growth and Investment Fund for: a. BeachStreet USA — Phase II $140, 000 b. Newspaper Rack Modules — Phase I $150, 000 c. Boardwalk Signage Enhancements $ 30,000 9. Ordinance to TRANSFER $200, 000 within the Parks and Recreation Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget re divided highway landscape enhancements. Item J.2, shall be ADOPTED, BY CONSENT, AS REVISED. February 7, 2006 -10- ITEM # 54880 Mayor Meyer E. Oberndorf entertained a motion to permit City Council to conduct its CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A), Code of Virginia, as amended, for the following purpose: PERSONNEL MATTERS: Discussion, consideration or interviews of prospective candidates for employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining or resignation of specific public officers, appointees or employees pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A) (1). To Wit: Appointments: Boards and Commissions: Beaches and Waterways Commission Francis Land House Board of Governors Governance Committee for Historic Sites Health Services Advisory Board Investment Partnership Advisory Committee Meals Tax Task Force Resort Advisory Commission (RAC) Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads Virginia Beach Community Development Corporation (VBCDC) PUBLICLY -HELD PROPERTY.- Discussion or consideration of the condition, acquisition, or use of real property for public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly -held property, or of plans for the future of an institution which could affect the value of property owned or desirable for ownership by such institution pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3). Bayside District Princess Anne District Upon motion by Councilman Schmidt, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council voted to proceed into CLOSED SESSION (4:25 P.M.). Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None (Closed Session: 4:05 P.M. - 5:30 P.M.) (Dinner: 5:45 P.M. — 6:05 P.M.) February 7, 2006 -11- FORMAL SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL February 7, 2006 6:10 P.M. Mayor Meyer E. Oberndorf called to order the FORMAL SESSION of the VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL in the Council Chamber, City Hall Building, on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 6:10 P.M. Council Members Present: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Absent: rcrr INVOCATION. Reverend Israel Zoberman Beth Chaverim Synagogue PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA Council Lady Rosemary Wilson DISCLOSED her husband is a principal in the accounting firm of Goodman and Company and is directly and indirectly involved in many of Goodman and Company's transactions. However, due to the size of Goodman and Company and the volume of transactions it handles in any given year, Goodman and Company has an interest in numerous matters in which her husband is not personally involved and of which she does not have personal knowledge. In order to ensure her compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, it is her practice to thoroughly review the agenda for each meeting of City Council for the purpose of identifying any matters in which she might have an actual or potential conflict. If, during her review she identifies any matters, she will prepare and file the appropriate disclosure letter to be recorded in the official records of City Council. Council Lady Wilson regularly makes this disclosure. Council Lady Wilson's letter of January 27, 2004, is hereby made a part of the record. Council Lady Rosemary Wilson DISCLOSED she is a real estate agent affiliated with Prudential Decker Realty. Because of the nature of Real Estate Agent affiliation, the size of Prudential, and the volume of transactions it handles in any given year, Prudential has an interest in numerous matters in which she is not personally involved and of which she does not have personal knowledge. In order to ensure her compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the State and Local Government Conflict oflnterests Act, it is her practice to thoroughly review the agenda for each meeting of City Council for the purpose of identifying any matters in which she might have an actual or potential conflict. If, during her review she identifies any matters, she will prepare and file the appropriate disclosure letter to be recorded in the official records of City Council. Council Lady Wilson regularly makes this disclosure. Council Lady Wilson 's letter of January 27, 2004, is hereby made apart of the record. February 7, 2006 -12- Item V-E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM # 54881 Upon motion by Councilman Dyer, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council CERTIFIED THE CLOSED SESSION TO BE INACCORDANCE WITH THE MOTION TO RECESS. Only public business matters lawfully exempt from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies. AND, Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. Voting: 11-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded in ITEM # 54880, page 10, and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. aaZ7y/o� 04o --- - ' uth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk February 7, 2006 Item V-F.1. -13- MINUTES ITEM #54882 Upon motion by Councilman Schmidt, seconded by Councilman Dyer, City Council APPROVED Minutes of the INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS of January 31, 2006. Voting: I1-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 -14- Item T- G. ADOPT AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION ITEM #54883 BY CONSENSUS, City Council ADOPTED: AGENDA FOR THE FORMAL SESSION February 7, 2006 Item V-H.1. -15- PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #54884 Mayor Oberndorf DECLARED PUBLIC COMMENT: TAXI METER DROP FEE INCREASE The following registered to speak. - Richard L. Yount, 3407 Norfeld Court, Phone: 368-0505, Taxi Driver, expressed appreciation for the increase in meter drop fees. However the taxi drivers had requested 250 more than the allocation from $1.85 to 2.25. Mr. Yount requested the City review the issue of Norfolk cab drivers illegally picking up passengers in Virginia Beach. February 7, 2006 -16- Item V J. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 54885 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council APPROVED IN ONE MOTION Items 1, 2 (AS REVISED), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the CONSENT AGENDA. Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 -17- Item V.J.1. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 54886 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution CALLING for a voter -initiated REFERENDUM to determine "is there a need"for a Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 1 A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A VOTER- 2 INITIATED REFERENDUM ELECTION TO 3 ACTIVATE A REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING 4 AUTHORITY 5 WHEREAS, on September 6, 2005, a private citizen submitted a 6 Petition of Qualified Voters for Referendum to the Voter Registrar 7 for the City of Virginia Beach; 8 WHEREAS, the petition was submitted pursuant to the provisions 9 of the Housing Authorities Law, which authorizes a referendum 10 election to create a redevelopment and housing authority upon the 11 filing of a petition signed by 100 freeholders of the City; 12 WHEREAS, the Housing Authorities Law requires the City Council 13 to call for a referendum election upon the filing of such a 14 petition; 15 WHEREAS, a court order calling for a referendum election must 16 be entered in order that such a referendum election be held; and 17 WHEREAS, the Voter Registrar has verified that the petition 18 was signed by at least 100 registered voters of the City of 19 Virginia Beach who also own land in the City, and thus the petition 20 is valid. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 22 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 23 Pursuant to the requirements imposed by Virginia Code § 36-4, 24 the City Council hereby calls for a referendum election to be held 25 on May 2, 2006, to determine whether there is need for a housing 26 and redevelopment authority. The City Council hereby directs the 27 City Attorney to present the petition, along with a. certified copy 28 of this resolution and an appropriate order, to the clerk of the 29 circuit court, for entry of an order pursuant to Virginia Code § 30 24.2-684. 31 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 32 Virginia, on the 7th day of February , 2006. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY lZ-70, - T---- City Attorney Office CA-9753 H/P&A/OrdRes/Housing Ref RES.doc January 27, 2006 R-10 Item T!J.Z RESOL UTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 54887 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council ADOPTED, AS REVISED: Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to incorporate in the fiscal budget process consideration of a Public Safety pay and classification range plan to prevent future pay compression Councilman Diezel requested this item be ADOPTED AS REVISED* On Lines 14 and 15 after the verbiage "...safety pay and classification ranges". the following shall be inserted. "...utilizing the current City pay plans." Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 ALTERNATE VERSION REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBERS DIEZEL AND WOOD 1 A RESOLUTION TO ADDRESS PUBLIC 2 SAFETY PAY COMPRESSION DISPARITIES 3 WHEREAS, the safety of Virginia Beach's citizens is 4 greatly enhanced by the City retaining its experienced public 5 safety employees; and 6 WHEREAS, pay compression has led many experienced public 7 safety employees to leave the City workforce to pursue positions 8 with other employers, including the federal government and the 9 private sector. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 That the City Manager is hereby directed to incorporate into 13 the budget process the following considerations, across the public 14 safety pay and classification ranges, utilizing the current City 15 pay plans: 16 1. To prevent.future pay compression in the public safety 17 pay and classification plans, pay adjustments shall be applied to 18 all employees and ranges; 19 2. For both fiscal year 06-07 and fiscal year 07-08, 20 adjustments based on years of service and years in grade shall be 21 made to the current public safety.pay and classification plans, at 22 a maximum cost of $4.5 million per fiscal year; 23 3. Prior to December 1, 2007, a revised step plan shall be 24 submitted to Council for review and discussion so it may be 25 considered as part of the fiscal year 08-09 budget; 26 4. Even if the above steps fail to alleviate supervisory pay 27 compression, such compression shall be alleviated within three 28 years of identification; 29 5. Future market salary surveys shall be restricted 30 initially to Hampton Roads communities; and 31 6. Proposed budgets shall include an annual summary of 32 entry-level public safety salaries in surrounding Hampton Roads 33 communities. 34 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 35 Virginia, on the 7th day of Finbrzxary , 2006. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY City Attorney's Office CA-9909 H/P&A/OrdRes/Public Safety Compensation RES.doc February 7 2006 R-4 -19- Item V.J.3. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 54888 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council ADOPTED: Resolution to OUTLINE procedures of prospective contracts for complex projects Voting: I 1-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: governing prequalification contractors re construction Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 1 A RESOLUTION OUTLINING PROCEDURES FOR 2 THE PREQUALIFICATION OF PROSPECTIVE 3 CONTRACTORS FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS 4 TO BE USED FOR COMPLEX PROJECTS 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to Code of Virginia ("Virginia Code") § 2.2- 6 4317, prospective contractors may be prequalified for particular 7 types of supplies, services, insurance or construction, and 8 consideration of bids or proposals may be limited to prequalified 9 contractors; 10 WHEREAS, any prequalification of prospective contractors for 11 construction by a public body shall be pursuant to a 12 prequalification process for construction projects adopted by the 13 public body; and 14 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, ("City") 15 desires to establish the necessary procedures for the 16 prequalification of prospective contractors for construction 17 contracts. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 19 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 20 That the following procedures shall govern the 21 prequalification of prospective contractors for construction 22 contracts: 23 1. The City shall publish notice of its request for 24 qualifications ("RFQ") at least ten (10) days prior to the date set 25 for receipt of qualifications by posting in the Purchasing Agent's 26 office and in a local newspaper of general circulation in the City 27 so as to provide reasonable notice to the maximum number of 28 offerors that can be reasonably anticipated to submit qualification 29 in response to the particular request. Additionally, qualification 30 may be solicited directly from vendors. If practicable, the notice 31 shall also be published in appropriate national trade publications. -32 2. The RFQ shall indicate in general terms those services 33 sought by the City, specifying the factors to be used in evaluating 34 the potential offeror's qualifications. The RFQ shall contain or 35 incorporate by reference other applicable contractual terms and 36 conditions, including any unique capabilities to be required of the 37 offeror. The RFQ shall request of potential offerors only such 38 information as is appropriate for an objective evaluation of all 39 offerors pursuant to such criteria. Prior to the issuance of the 40 RFQ, the City shall establish procedures whereby comments 41 concerning specifications or other provisions in the RFQ can be 42 received and considered prior to the time set for receipt of 43 qualifications. 44 3. The Committee shall evaluate each responding offeror's 45 qualifications submittal, and any other relevant information, and 46 shall select a minimum of two (2) offerors deemed to be fully 47 qualified and best suited. An offeror may be denied 48 prequalification only upon the grounds set forth in Virginia Code § 49 2.2-4317. At least thirty (30) days prior to the date established 50 for the submission of proposals, the City shall advise each offeror 51 in writing as to whether that offeror has been prequalified. In 52 the event that an offeror is denied prequalification, the written 53 notice shall state the reasons for the denial of prequalification 54 and the factual basis for such reasons. 55 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 56 Virginia, on the 7th day of Fehr„ary , 2006. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Finance Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: J1� 41ry i � L City Attorney's Office CA9896 H:\GG\PA\OrdRes\Constractor Contracts RES R-2 January 19, 2006 -20- Item V.J.4. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 54889 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to acquire property adjacent to the Lake Edward West Pump Station for the amount of $4,000 and execute all necessary documents for the sale. Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE 2 ACQUISITION OF THE PARCEL ADJACENT 3 TO THE LAKE EDWARD WEST PUMP STATION 4 (GPIN 1468-00-7705), IN FEE SIMPLE 5 6 Funds from CIP 6-082 System 7 Expansion Cost Participation 8 Agreements Phase I 9 10 11 WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Virginia 12 Beach, Virginia, a public necessity exists for the acquisition of 13 the parcel adjacent to the Lake Edward West Pump Station (GPIN 14 1468-00-7705) (the "Parcel") for future replacement or 15 rehabilitation of the Lake Edward West Pump Station, to provide 16 needed improvements to the City's water and sanitary sewer system 17 and for other public purposes including the preservation of the 18 safety, health, comfort and convenience, and for the general 19 welfare of the citizens of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; 20 WHEREAS, the owner of the Parcel, Robert L. Flowers, Jr., 21 desires and has offered to sell to the City of Virginia Beach, 22 Virginia, the Parcel pursuant to an Agreement of Sale, the terms 23 and conditions of which are mutually agreeable to all parties; and 24 WHEREAS, funding for this acquisition is available and has 25 been approved in CIP Project 6-028 System Expansion Cost 26 Participation Agreements Phase I. 27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 28 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 29 1. That the City Council finds there is a public necessity 30 for acquisition of this parcel for future replacement or Page 1 of 3 31 rehabilitation of the Lake Edward West Pump Station and approves 32 and authorizes the acquisition in fee simple of the parcel adjacent 33 to the Lake Edward West Pump Station (GPIN 1468-00-7705) (the 34 "Parcel") from Robert L. Flowers, Jr., by purchase pursuant to 35 §15.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, which Parcel 36 is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. Use of the Parcel will be 37 made only after compliance with Administrative Directive 3.14 for 38 "Public Input for Public Infrastructure Projects Undertaken in the 39 City." 40 2. That the City Manager or his designee is hereby 41 authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach an 42 Agreement of Sale for the Parcel for the sum and payment of Four 43 Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00). 44 3. That the City Manager or his designee is further 45 authorized to execute all documents that may be necessary or 46 appropriate in connection with the purchase of the Parcel, so long 47 as such documents are acceptable to the City Manager and City 48 Attorney. 49 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 50 Virginia, on the 7th day of February 1 2006. Page 2 of 3 APPROVED TO C TENTS ATURE VtA VC - DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CITY ATTORNEY CA9830 F:\Data\ATY\OID\REALESTATE\Acquisitions\WORKING-COND\AcquisitionOrdinances\ORDINANCE6-082Lake Edwards West.doc R-1 January 18, 2006 Page 3 of 3 JL- yam.,, cm W "M -ft �r�,�N�•�t +^7l�1'�`��.'4•f t,:�•Se Sw .,1.A ..may,; 1�-{�� 1 � •.: 'l: - �. �,, .... S. •tiF" -,� - �l'��..•`, (:.11117:��] . 1. �. .. i ������!}�7M.��� �S 3{r_ ...LC��S.i.��.t�li-�2.C� .. _. ] � ...ice\� t ..%`_�+�15- _ :ia'� 3'i• 04 r 2a W-4 %C . � s- i w tom. ``_ ♦ � . • Y�{ , �.• a. ` ] S tt M :rft•Y}'��bl�"71r e yi, . • moo° I rs.'� J!',t't:. i? '�'. v'1►� ; . Lti Fed tL,y, s' s �•nft ,- n � � "'��� '�� °, � ti � ,. r��y "`... .. . rev^ • �' t ' �•� r4 Lily. * v ,� ,Y\t ti� i ts-Si ¢ r-Hj S �• � i� - �"` - 4. - :... _ .r� :: • t ' yam- - •� � l •! t, •'` .#':'�,3�'T ��ti Jam• owT - _ �,•,�� ti -` .Gas.. t.~ �. �r :v-.rtr^ � - •. - .. � • _.. - Sh i -21- Item V.J.S. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 54890 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to APPROPRIATE a $150,000 interest free loan with scheduled repayments re Atlantic Wildfowl Heritage Museum site improvements. (deferred January 31, 2006) Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: nr.2N February 7, 2006 1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $150,000 2 FROM THE FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL 3 FUND TO THE ATLANTIC WILDFOWL HERITAGE 4 MUSEUM FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS 5 6 WHEREAS, the Atlantic Wildfowl Heritage Museum (the 7 "Museum") is located in the historic DeWitt Cottage at 12tn 8 Street and Atlantic Avenue at the Oceanfront; and 9 WHEREAS, the Museum has planned a series of site 10 improvements, including the placement of a permanent sculpture 11 on the grounds of the DeWitt Cottage, relocation of the parking 12 area, and landscaping, as outlined in the attached Preliminary 13 Design Booklet, and 14 WHEREAS, the Museum does not presently have sufficient 15 funds to pay for these improvements, but has represented that 16 current fund-raising efforts will enable it to repay an 17 interest -free loan from the City of Virginia Beach in the amount 18 of $150,000. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 20 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 21 1. That $150,000 is hereby appropriated from the Fund 22 Balance of the General Fund to provide an interest -free loan to 23 the Atlantic Wildfowl Heritage Museum, so that the Museum may 24 undertake site improvements in accordance with the attached 25 Preliminary Design Booklet. 26 2. That the Museum may draw down on the loan prior to 27 December 31, 2006, as necessary. 28 3. That the terms for this loan shall provide that it is 29 to be repaid by the Museum over five (5) years, with payments 30 due on the thirty-first (31St) day of December each year. 31 Payments shall be made in five (5) equal installments, with the 32 first payment to be made on or before December 31, 2006, and the 33 last payment to be made on or before December 31, 2010. 34 3. That, as a condition of receiving this loan, the 35 Museum shall execute a promissory note providing for the terms 36 and conditions of the loan and provide quarterly reports, 37 beginning on April 1, 2006, to the City Manager concerning the 38 status of the Museum's pledge campaign and collections. 39 4. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute 40 a memorandum of understanding consistent with the terms of this 41 ordinance. 42 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 43 Virginia on the 7th day of February , 2006. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: , jaff U �_) k City Attorney' Office CA9898 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Wildfowl Museum Loan ORD R-3 February 1, 2006 DRAFT TERM SHEET TITLE: Agreement between the Atlantic Wildfowl Heritage Museum and the City of Virginia Beach. PURPOSE: To partner for the construction of various site enhancements including new paving, walkways, landscaping, signage and the placement of a sculpture on the grounds of the Atlantic Wildfowl Heritage Museum, 113 Atlantic Avenue. WITiM X41 FUNDING: All costs are to be borne by the Atlantic Wildfowl Heritage Museum. Resources will be provided by existing contributions. In order to accelerate the realization of the project an interest free loan from the City of Virginia Beach is provided. The proceeds from the loan, when combined with existing funds and the contribution of service and materials from Guild supporters, will allow the project to move quickly to completion. Completion date shall be on or before December 31, 2006. LOAN AMOUNT: The Museum may draw down up to $150,000 prior to December 31, 2006. LOAN PAYMENT SCHEDULE: The loan shall be repaid over five years with payments due on December 31, 2006, December 31, 2007, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010. Payment shall be made in equal installments based on the total amount borrowed. CONTRIBUTION PROCESS AND CONDITIONS: The Atlantic Wildfowl Heritage Museum shall be responsible for the design, permitting and construction of all plans and site improvements as shown in the preliminary design booklet dated December 14, 2001, entitled, "Proposed Site Improvements at Atlantic Wildfowl Heritage Museum," Virginia Beach, Virginia. All construction is subject to review and approval by the City of Virginia Beach. -22- Item V.J.6. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 54891 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $115, 000 from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to establish CIP funding for the Ferry Plantation House grant re restoration and landscaping. Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE 2 $115,000 FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF 3 TRANSPORTATION TO ESTABLISH CIP PROJECT 4 # 3-300, FERRY PLANTATION HOUSE GRANT 5 6 7 WHEREAS, the Virginia Transportation Board has allocated 8 Federal Transportation Enhancement funds to the City of Virginia 9 Beach to provide for building restoration and landscaping at the 10 Ferry Plantation House. 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 12 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 13 1. That Capital Project # 3-300, Ferry Plantation House 14 Grant, is hereby established in the Capital Improvement Program 15 for the purpose of funding building restoration and landscaping 16 at the Ferry Plantation House. 17 2. That $115,000 is hereby accepted from the Virginia 18 Department of Transportation and appropriated to Capital Project 19 # 3-300, Ferry Plantation House Grant, in the FY 2005-06 Capital 20 Budget, with revenue from the federal government increased 21 accordingly. 22 3. That $30,000 is hereby transferred from Capital 23 Project # 3-107, Ferry Farm House Restoration, to Capital 24 Project# 3-300, Ferry Plantation House Grant, to provide the 25 required match funds. 26 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 27 28 Virginia, on the 7th day of PehruarW 2006. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management Services F APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: jvr� P-k - - City Attorney's Office CA9899 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Ferry Plantation House ORD R-4 January 27, 2006 —I :—C.S: i i : t dx+-M COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219-2000 PHILIP A. SHUCET COMMISSIONER October 21, 2003 Mr. Robert J. Scott Director of Planning 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 MICHAEL A. ESTES, PE INTERIM DIRECTOR LOCAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION Post4tm Fax Note 7671 Date fi jL a3 Ins° , 70 1( Pro '('t�1/l3lt c°mepL idU �u+w► Co. a Phone�3 j - boaPhortiZ?— 'ffSy.3 Fax � , I _ 3-1 e3 zI;- 56107 Subject: Enhancement Program The ferry Plantation House Restoration Dear Mr. Scott: Congratulations! Your application for Enhancement. Program funds submitted July 1, 2003 has been approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in the amount of $115,000.00. Meetings have been scheduled in several different areas of the state. to discuss necessary steps for implementation of your enhancement project. A copy of the meeting schedule is attached. All project sponsor meetings will begin at 10 AM and it is imperative that a representative from the project sponsor be present at one of these meetings. Please call 1- 800-444-7832 and let us know which meeting you will be attending, and how many will attend, in order that sufficient space can be made available. Please do not spend any funds or initiate any phase of your project until after this meeting, and until you are authorized in writing to do so. Since this is a federally funded program, to begin project activities before securing proper authorization would jeopardize federal participation. In consideration of applications for the next selection round, it will not be necessary for you to submit another application. Your application submitted this past July 1, 2003 will automatically be reconsidered. You should update the financial information and funding request included in your previous application, and that information should be submitted to us by March 1, 2004. In addition, applications for any new projects will also be due b;r that date. The Enhancement Program Staff will be conducting public workshops on the next round of applications ald selection process the same day that project sponsor meetings are held. These applicant workshops will be :Held at the same location and are scheduled to begin at 1:30 in the afternoon. 1i:14Alf" I Mr. ,Robert J. Scott October 21, 2003 Page 2 If you have any questions about your current application or the recent selections, please contact the members of our Enhancement Program Staff at 1-800-444-7832. Thank you for your interest in Virginia's Enhancement Program Sincerely, Wade Chenault, Jr. Enhancement Program Section -23- Item V. J. 7. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 54892 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $51,375 to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget re the purchase of a Hazmat Communications System. Voting: I1-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE 2 $51,375 TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY 3 2005-06 nPERATING BUDGET FOR THE 4 PURCHASE OF A HAZMAT COMMUNICATIONS 5 SYSTEM 6 WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Fire Department received a 7 grant in 1999 to fund the purchase of a communications system 8 that failed to operate properly and the vendor has refunded the 9 purchase price to the City; and 10 WHEREAS, the use of these funds to purchase a new 11 communications system is consistent with the intent of the 12 original grant. 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 14 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 15 That $51,376 in funds is hereby accepted and appropriated 16 to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget to be used 17 for the purchase of a new hazmat communications system, with 18 local revenue increased accordingly. 19 Accepted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 20 Virginia on the 7th day of Fehr„airy 2006. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management Services CA9895 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\CAT System Refund ORD R-1 January 17, 2006 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney s ffice -24- Item V.J.8.a/b/c RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 54893 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to TRANSFER $320, 000 from the FY 2005-06 Operating Budget of the Tourism Growth and Investment Fund for: a. BeachStreet USA — Phase II $140, 000 b. Newspaper Rack Modules —Phase I $150, 000 Boardwalk Signage Enhancements $ 30,000 Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robe McClanan, Richard A. Peter W. Schmidt, Ron Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None rt M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood February 7, 2006 1 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $320,000 FROM THE 2 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES IN THE FY 2005-06 3 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE TOURISM GROWTH AND 4 INVESTMENT FUND TO FUND CIP PROJECT #9-075 5 BEACHSTREET USA - PHASE II AND OTHER 6 IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RESORT AREA 7 WHEREAS, the FY 2005-06 Operating Budget of the Tourism Growth 8 and Investment Fund has sufficient funds to provide resort area 9 improvements supported by the Resort Advisory Committee. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 1. That Capital Project #9-075, BeachStreet USA - Phase II, 13 is hereby established in the FY 2005-06 Capital Budget. 14 2. That $140,000 is hereby transferred from the Reserve for 15 Contingencies in the FY 2005-06 Operating Budget of the Tourism 16 Growth and Investment Fund to Capital Project #9-075, BeachStreet 17 USA - Phase II, for additional lighting in the resort area. 18 3. That $180,000 is hereby transferred within the FY 2005-06 19 Operating Budget of the Tourism Growth and Investment Fund from 20 Reserve for Contingencies to Resort Building Maintenance for other 21 improvements in the resort area. 22 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 23 Virginia, on the nth day of Pe ,.,,ar,y_, 2006. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management Services CA9904 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\TGIF Projects ORD R-2 January 26 2006 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: �J City Attorney's ffice 01-10-'06 14:23 FROM-TAYLORS DO -IT CENTER 757-491-2912 T-410 P002/082 F-653 January b, 2006 Mike Eason Resort Administrator Resort Management Office 2101 Parks Avenge, Suite 502 Virginia Beath, Virginia 23451 Dear Mr. Eason; Resort Advisory Commission 2101 Parks Avenue, Suite 502 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 (757) 437-48M FAX (757) 422.3666 At its January 5, 2006, meeting, the Resort Advisory Commission unanimously voted to support funding from TGIF for five projects: 17' Street Lighting Project, 17' Street Paris Storage Facility, News Rack Modules, Improved Boardwalk Signs, and Legends Walk Phase ll, these projects were approved with the condition that the Ughting, News Rocks, and Soardwa k Signs be completed by the 2006 season. if you have any questions or need any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. rdiall , Joseph D. Taylor, Il Chairman Resort Advisory Commission Copy to: Mayor Oberndon' and Members of City Council RAC Commissioners Jim Ricketts - 25 - Item V.J.9. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM # 54894 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council ADOPTED: Ordinance to TRANSFER $200,000 within the Parks and Recreation Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget re divided highway landscape enhancements. Voting: I1-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 1 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $200,000 WITHIN THE 2 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT'S FY 2005-06 3 OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENHANCING 4 LANDSCAPING OF DIVIDED HIGHWAYS 5 WHEREAS, the Landscape Services Division of the Parks and 6 Recreation Department is anticipating a surplus of personnel funds 7 due to vacancies and is requesting to redirect those funds to 8 contractual services accounts to enhance highway landscape 9 maintenance. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 That $200,000 is hereby transferred within the Parks and 13 Recreation Department's FY 2005-06 Operating Budget for the purpose 14 of enhancing the landscaping of divided highways for the remainder 15 of the current fiscal year. 16 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 17 Virginia, on the 7th day of February , 2006. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's ffice CA9902 H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Highway Landscaping ORD R-1 January 24, 2006 -26- Item V-K.1. APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 54895 BY CONSENSUS, City Council RESCHEDULED: BEACHES and WATERWAYS COMMISSION INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE — PPEA MEAL TAX TASK FORCE RESORT AREA COMMITTEE (RAC) VIRGINA BEACH COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION February 7, 2006 -27- Item V-K.2. APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 54896 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Jones, City Council APPOINTED: Linda Lane Lilley, Ph.D Unexpired thru 0313112008 HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 Item V-K.3. APPOINTMENTS ITEM # 54897 Upon NOMINATION by Vice Mayor Jones, City Council APPOINTED: Travis Campbell Alternate No Term TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS Voting: 11-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None February 7, 2006 WE Item V-N. ADJOURNMENT ITEM # 54898 Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf DECLARED the City Council Meeting ADJOURNED at 6:20 P.M. Beverly 0. kooks, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk City of Virginia Beach Virginia Meyera E. Oberndorf Mayor After ADJOURNMENT, Public Comments relative Non Agenda Items were heard and adjourned 6: 38 P.M. February 7, 2006 -30- PUBLIC COMMENTS Non Agenda Items Scott Seeley, 412 20`h Street, Phone: 343-9634, spoke relative 191h Street widening, as he was in attendance during the City Council Workshop of January 17, 2006, discussions. As a resident of 20`h Street, he is not affected by this project. Mr. Seeley requested the options be reviewed which require a minimum of eminent domain condemnation. Two (2) of the options require only a single acquisition which is not an owner -occupied house. The third option requires eight (8) whole property acquisitions along 19`h Street. Mr. Seeley requested this option not be pursued without willing support of the owners. Karen Krieger, 2501 Little Acorn Court, Phone: 427-7092, had previously requested a school blinking light on Windsor Oaks Boulevard. Ms. Krieger is an employee of White Oaks Elementary School, located on Windsor Oaks Boulevard (which is posted 25 miles per hour). The City Manager, in his correspondence, advised as this roadways is posted 25 miles per hour, it does not meet the requirements of a school zone caution light. Mrs. Krieger requested reconsideration. Mrs. Krieger's post as crossing guard is on a blind corner. The City Manager advised the staff would make a site visit to the blind corner. The City Manager has requested the police to do additional Police enforcement. Kelli Bonkoski, 313 Eastwood Circle, Phone: 428-2406, requested permission to keep her fence in this current location at its current height of 6 feet. Information distributed is hereby made a part of the record. As the fence issue is now under discussion and amendments to the City Code will be considered, Mrs. Bonkoski was requested to discuss this matter with the Director of Zoning. Information shall be provided February 7, 2006 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V O I M B L DATE: February 7, 2006 C E S L D C M R C A W PAGE: 1 I J L A N R H N I E D O A D D E M U L W AGENDA Z Y N N D O E I E S O SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E E E A O R V D V O O E L R S N X F E T A N D I -A BRIEFING: A. VA AQUARIUM Lynn Clements, Director, Museums and Cultural Arts Tom Fraim, President, Foundation Peter Sollogub, Principal Architect 11/III/ IVN/ VI-E CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION CERTIFIED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F-1 MINUTES— January 31, 2006 APPROVED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y G/H-1 PUBLIC HEARING 1 speaker 1. TAXI METER DROP FEE INCREASE I/J-I Resolution CALLING for voter -initiated ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y REFERENDUM to determine "is there a need" CONSENT for Redevelopment/Housing Authority 2 Resolution toAUTHORIZE a Public Safety ADOPTED AS 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y pay /classification range plan. REVISED, BY CONSENT 3 Resolution toOUTLINE prequalification of ADOOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y prospective contractors recontracts for complex CONSENT projects. 4 Ordinance toAUTHORIZE acquisition of ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y property adjacent to Lake Edward West Pump CONSENT Station for $4,000. 5 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE a $150,000 ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y interest -free loan re Atlantic Wildfowl Heritage CONSENT Museum. 6 Ordinance to ACCEPT /APPROPRIATE ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $115,000 from VDOT to establish funding for CONSENT Ferry Plantation Housegrant. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V O I M B L DATE: February 7, 2006 C E S L D C M R C A W PAGE: 2 I J L A N R H N I E D 0 A D D E M U L W AGENDA Z Y N N D O E I E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE E E E A 0 R V D V 0 0 L R S N X F E T A N D 7 Ordinance to ACCEPT/APPROPRIATE ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $51,375 to Fire reHazmat Communications CONSENT System. 8 Ordinance to TRANSFER $320,000 for: ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CONSENT a. BeachStreet USA— Phase II $140,000 b. Newspaper Rack Modules — Phase I $150,000 c. Boardwalk Signage Enhancements $ 30,000 9 Ordinance to TRANSFER $200,000 redivided ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y highway landscape CONSENT K APPOINTMENTS BEACHES and WATERWAYS COMMISSION RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY APPOINTED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Term: Unexpired thru 03/31/2008 Linda Lilley, PhD INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S COMMITTEE— PPEA MEAL TAX TASK FORCE RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S RESORT AREA COMMITTEE (RAC) RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT APPOINTED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS No Term Travis Campbell VIRGTNIA BEACH COMMUNITY RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION L/M/ ADJOURNMENT 6:20 P.M. N PUBLIC COMMENTS 2 speakers