HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 13, 2006 AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF. At-Large
VICE MA YOR LOUIS R. JONES. Bayside - District 4
HARRY E. DIEZEL Kempsville - District 2
ROBERT M. DYER, Centerville - District J
REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall- District 3
RICHARD A. MADDOX. Beach - District 6
JIM REEVE. Princess Anne - District 7
PETER W. SCHMIDT. At-Large
RON A. VILLANUEVA. At-Large
ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large
JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5
CITY MANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE
CITY ATTORNEY - LESUE L. UUEY
CiTY CLERK - RUTH HODGES SMITH. MMC
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
A COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
13 June 2006
I.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
Conference Room
II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
III. INFORMAL SESSION
Conference Room
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
CITY HALL BUILDING
2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 13456-8005
PHONE:(757) 385-4303
FAX (757) 385-5669
E-MAIL: Ctycnc/@vbgov.com
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
N. FORMAL SESSION
Council Chamber
6:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf
B.
INVOCATION:
Reverend Stanley Sawyer, D.D.
Pastor, All Saints Episcopal Church
C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
F. MINUTES
1.
INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS
June 6, 2006
G. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PRECINCT BOUNDARIES AND LOCA nONS
a. Create new precincts and polling places
b. Modify precinct boundaries
c. Change existing polling places
H. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
I. CONSENT AGENDA
J. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES
1. Ordinances to AMEND the City Code:
a. Article II: ADD ~ 2-15 re Mayoral, City Council and School Board elections on the
first Tuesday in November
b. S 1 0-1: ADD one voting precinct, CHANGE boundary lines for two voting precincts
and MOVE three polling locations
2. Ordinance to DISSOLVE and RECONSTITUTE the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities
Commission.
3. Ordinance re MODIFICATIONS to Town Center Phase III project documents.
4. Resolution to DESIGNATE the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin as the City's official Marine
Mammal.
5. Annual PERMIT RENEWAL for area private and non-profit EMS organizations:
a. Medical Transport
b. Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc.
c. Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance
d. Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters
e. Eastern Shore Ambulance
f. Network Medical
6. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments:
a. Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger into Lake Wesley to construct and
maintain a pier extension, gazebo, floating piers, boat lift, et cetera, at 528 Kerry
Lane DISTRICT 6 - BEACH
b. Robert J. and Carol R. Quinn into a man-made canal in Lagomar to construct
and maintain a bulkhead, dock and boat lift at 2404 Entrada Drive
DISTRICT 5 - PRINCESS ANNE
7. Ordinance to REVISE categorical appropriations for the School operating fund and
AMEND their FY 2006-07 operating and capital budgets as requested by the School Board.
8. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition, by purchase for public purposes, a portion of
property at 420 Thalia Road from Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church; and,
AUTHORIZE the City Manager to EXCUTE all documents pertaining thereto.
9. Ordinances re Williams Farm property:
a. AUTHORIZE the City Manager to SELL a portion of City property at 1068
Newtown Road to the Virginia Beach School Board re a new elementary school;
ACCEPT the dedication of a right-of-way; and, EXECUTE all documents
pertaining thereto
b. ESTABLISH a Capital Project re Williams Park Improvements and
APPROPRIATE $1,264,972 from the sale of property re park infrastructure
development
10. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $43,560 from Cost Recovery Revenue and
$4,944 from the Fire Department Gift Fund to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 operating
budget re Operation Smoke Detector and the Life Safety Education program.
11. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $350,000 in Federal and State revenue re child care
subsidies to low-income parents.
12. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $45,703 grant from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services to the FY2005-06 Human Services operating budget re multi-
systemic therapy services to young adolescents and their families.
13. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $125,104 from the General Fund and $125,104 from the
SherifP s Department Special Revenue Fund to the FY 2006-07 SherifP s Department
operating budget re increased costs of the Central Booking Program.
K. PLANNING
1. Application of DANNY K. MARTIN for a Chanf!e ofZoninf! District Classification
from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional 1.,.1 Light Industrial District at
5840 Burton Station Road to develop an office-warehouse facility.
DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE
DEFERRED
STAFF RECOMMENDS
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
May 9 and 23, 2006
DENIAL
APPROVAL
2. Application of BELLAMY ASSOCIATES, L.C. for a Chanf!e of Zoninf! District
Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apartment District at
4416 Princess Anne Road to develop multi-family dwellings.
DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
DEFERRED INDEFINITELY
RECOMMENDATION
February 28,2006
APPROVAL
3. Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Chanfle ofZoninf! District Classification from AG-l
and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District on the north side
of the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane.
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
INDEFINITELY DEFERRED
March 23, 2004
March 28, 2006
APPROVAL OF
ALTERNATNE4
APPROVAL
STAFF RECOMMENDS
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
4. Application ofLBH, LLC for a Chanf!e ofZoninf! District Classification from AG-l and
AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential with a PD-H2 Planned Unit
Development District Overlay and B-1A Limited Business District on the west side of
Princess Anne Road, southwest of Sand bridge Road, to develop a residential neighborhood
of mixed units and a restaurant.
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
STAFF RECOMMENDS
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
DENIAL
APPROVAL
5. Applications of OCEAN PROP~R.TIES, L.L.C. at 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive
and 2209, 2213, 2217, 2216, 2208 North Oliver Road:
DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE
a. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive,
beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake
Bradford
b. Chanfle ofZoninfl District Classification from R-10 (SD) Residential District to
Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District
c. Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVAL
L. APPOINTMENTS
ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION
BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION
BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMIITEE
BUILDING CODE OF APPEALS - New Construction
GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMIITEE - PPEA
MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL
OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY COMMIITEE
P ARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON ROADS
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N. NEW BUSINESS
O. ADJOURNMENT
CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS RESCHEDULED
July 4, 2006
July 11,2006
ALL SESSIONS CANCELED
July 18,2006
July 19 - August 7, 2006
August 8, 2006
BrieImg, Informal and Formal Sessions
and Reorganization of City Council
BrieImg, Informal and Formal Sessions
City Council Vacation
Resume Regular Schedule
********
If you are physically disabled or visually impaired
and need assistance at this meeting,
please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303
Hearing impaired, call: Virginia Relay Center at
1-800-828-1120
***********
Agenda 6/08/06 gw/mb
www.vbgov.com
1. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Conference Room
A. COMPREHENSNE PLAN REVISION - Redevelopment Authority
3:00 PM
II. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
III. INFORMAL SESSION
Conference Room
4:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
IV. FORMAL SESSION
Council Chamber
6:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
B.
INVOCATION:
Reverend Stanley Sawyer, D.D.
Pastor, All Saints Episcopal Church
C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL
E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
F. MINUTES
1.
INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS
June 6, 2006
Iltsnlutinu
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION,
pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and,
WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council
hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed
Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters
as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed orM
considered by Virginia Beach City Council.
G. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PRECINCT BOUNDARIES AND LOCATIONS
a. Create new precincts and polling places
b. Modify precinct boundaries
c. Change existing polling places
Ad 10 /15217335
Date I05/3()/200B
Time/1:41 PM
PUBLIC HEARING
ADDING NEW VOTING PRECINCT
CHANGING POUING LOCATIONS
AND BOUNDARY LINES RESULTING
FROM POPULATION INCREASES
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
The City Council of Virginia Beacl1. Virginia at its
formal session on June :1.3, 2006, at 6:00 P.M..
will consider an ordinance to make changes to the
boundary lines and/or polling locations for the Davis
Corner, Great Neck, Kingston. Red Wing, and
BrookwoOd Precincts.
The ordinance proposes that the Davis Corner
Precinct be divided forming a new Haygood Precinct
and placing voters in the new polling location at
Haygood United MethOdist Church at 4713 Hay-
good Road; the Great Neck Precinct be split placing
Bay Island into the Colony Precinct at 2217 W.
Great Neck Road: the Kingston Precinct polling loca-
tion be moved from Kingston Elementary School at
3532 King's Grant Road to King's Grant PreSbyte-
rian Church at 745 Little Neck Road; the Red Wing
Precinct polling location be moved from Birdneck
Elementary School at 957 S. Birdneck Road to the
Fraternal Order of Police. Lodge #8. at 961 S. Bird-
neck Road; the Brookwood Precinct polling location
be temporarily moved from Brookwood Elementary
School located at 601. S. Lynnhaven Road. which is
under construction. to Bow Creek Recreation Center
located at 3427 Clubhouse Road.
After adoption by City Council. these changes will
become effective following approval by the United
States Department of Justice. pursuant to the Vot-
ing Rights Act of 1965. as amended. Descriptions
and maps of the precinct boundaries, polling places.
and proposed polling place changes. as well as a
copy of the aforesaid ordinance. may be inspected
in the Voter Registrar's Office. which is located at
2449 Princess Anne Road. Municipal Center. Build-
ing 14, Virginia Beach. Virginia. 23456.
The public hearing will be conducted in the City
Council Chamber of the Administration Building
(Building #1) at the Municipal Center. If you are
physically disabled or visually impaired and need
assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY
CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303: Hearing impaired,
call: TOD only 385-4305 (TOO - Telephonic Device
for the Deaf).
......' . '-
...~....::..J::.: .
Ruth Hodges Smith. MMC
City Clerk
BeaGOn June 4 & 11, 2006
15217335
Ad shown is not actual print size
H. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION
I. CONSENT AGENDA
J. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES
1. Ordinances to AMEND the City Code:
a. Article II: ADD ~ 2-15 re Mayoral, City Council and School Board elections on the
first Tuesday in November
b. S 1 0-1: ADD one voting precinct, CHANGE boundary lines for two voting precincts
and MOVE three polling locations
2. Ordinance to DISSOLVE and RECONSTITUTE the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities
Commission.
3. Ordinance re MODIFICATIONS to Town Center Phase III project documents.
4. - Resolution to DESIGNATE the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin as the City's official Marine
Mammal.
5. Annual PERMIT RENEWAL for area private and non-profit EMS organizations:
a. Medical Transport
b. Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc.
c. Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance
d. Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters
e. Eastern Shore Ambulance
f. Network Medical
6. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments:
a. Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger into Lake Wesley to construct and
maintain a pier extension, gazebo, floating piers, boat lift, et cetera, at 528 Kerry
Lane DISTRICT 6 - BEACH
b. Robert J. and Carol R. Quinn into a man-made canal in Lagomar to construct
and maintain a bulkhead, dock and boat lift at 2404 Entrada Drive
DISTRICT 5 - PRINCESS ANNE
7. Ordinance to REVISE categorical appropriations for the School operating fund and
AMEND their FY 2006-07 operating and capital budgets as requested by the School Board.
8. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition, by purchase for public purposes, a portion of
property at 420 Thalia Road from Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church; and,
AUTHORIZE the City Manager to EXCUTE all documents pertaining thereto.
9. Ordinances re Williams Farm property:
a. AUTHORIZE the City Manager to SELL a portion of City property at 1068
Newtown Road to the Virginia Beach School Board re a new elementary school;
ACCEPT the dedication of a right-of-way; and, EXECUTE all documents
pertaining thereto
b. ESTABLISH a Capital Project re Williams Park Improvements and
APPROPRIATE $1,264,972 from the sale of property re park infrastructure
development
10. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $43,560 from Cost Recovery Revenue and
$4,944 from the Fire Department Gift Fund to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 operating
budget re Operation Smoke Detector and the Life Safety. Education program.
11. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $350,000 in Federal and State revenue re childcare
subsidies to low-income parents.
12. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $45,703 grant from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services to the FY2005-06 Human Services operating budget re muIti-
systemic therapy services to young adolescents and their families.
13. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $125,104 from the General Fund and $125,104 from the
Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund to the FY 2006-07 Sheriff's Department
operating budget re increased costs of the Central Booking Program.
..!~.it-"'\h
i:"~11.;1tf::Wl~t.?"'I...
,... ;.;..........;... .':-i<<'~. "0:):
f,J1W
................,
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
An Ordinance to Amend Article II of the City Code by Adding Section 2-15
to Provide for Mayoral, City Council, and School Board Elections to Take
Place on the First Tuesday in November
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background: Local elections in Virginia Beach are currently held in May, while
state and national elections are held in November. Although the City Charter
provides that elections of the Mayor, City Council and School Board shall be held
in May, a Virginia Code provision supersedes the Charter provisions and allows
City Council and School Board members to be elected at the November general
election if City Council so provides by ordinance. The terms of those elected
would begin on January 1.
. Considerations: Historically, voter turnout at November elections has been
more -than double that of May elections. The City also would realize a
considerable cost savings by holding only one election for local, state and
national offices.
The proposed ordinance would change the date of election of the Mayor, City
Council members, and School Board members from May to November,
beginning in 2008. Elections to be held under current law in May 2008 instead
would be held in November 2008. As a transition measure, incumbents whose
terms otherwise would expire as of June 30, 2008 would remain in office until
their successors elected in November 2008 take office on January 1, 2009.
. Public Information: This ordinance will be included in the normal City Council
agenda process.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Council member Wood and Mayor Oberndorf
City Manager:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE II OF
THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 2-15
TO PROVIDE FOR MAYORAL, CITY
COUNCIL, AND SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS
TO TAKE PLACE ON THE FIRST TUESDAY
IN NOVEMBER
SECTION ADDED: ~ 2-15
9
WHEREAS, the continued success of a democratic government
10 depends upon the participation of its citizens in the democratic
11 process ; and
12 WHEREAS, government functions best when there is a high degree
13 of participation by citizens in electing government leaders; and
14 WHEREAS, more than twice as many Virginia Beach residents vote
15 ~n November elections than in May elections (to wit: there were
16 97,644 voters in the November 2005 election, but only 44,985 votes
17 in the May 2006 election; 177,234 voters in November 2003, but only
18 41,572 voters in May 2004; and 93,480 voters in November 2001, but
19 only 47,333 voters in May 2002) ;
20 WHEREAS, financing the cost of one election is significantly
21 less than the cost of financing two separate elections; and
22 WHEREAS, Virginia law provides that the governing body of a
23 city may provide, by ordinance, that the City Council and School
24 Board shall be elected at the November general election for terms
25 to commence the following January 1; and
26 WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to facilitate
27 the exercise by its citizens of their right to vote;
28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
29 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
30
31 That Section 2-15 of the City Code is hereby added, to read as
32 follows:
33 Sec. 2-15 Mayoral, City Council and School Board Elections
34 ~ City Council and School Board elections shall take place
35 during the general election in November 2008, and during the
36
November general
election
in even years
thereafter,
for
37 councilmembers and school board members whose terms expire at the
38
end of December of that year.
The term of office for each
39 councilmember and school board member shall commence on January 1
40 next following the date of the November election and shall continue
41 until his-or her successor has been duly elected and qualified.
42
(b) The mayor shall be elected at the general election in
43 November 2008, and each fourth year thereafter. The mayor's term
44 of office shall commence on January 1 next following the date of
45 the November election and shall continue until his or her successor
46 has been duly elected and qualified.
47
lEi Councilmembers, the mayor, and school board members whose
48 terms expire as of June 30, 2008 shall continue in office until
49 their successors have been elected at the November 2008 election
50 and take office on January I, 2009.
51
ill Except for the changes to the date of elections and
52 corresponding changes in the terms of office established in this
53 section, all other provisions of the City Charter relating to the
54 election of councilmembers, the mayor, and school board members
55 shall remain in effect.
56 COMMENT
57 Virginia Code ~ 24.2-222.1 authorizes localities to change the date of elections for
58 councilmembers, the mayor, and school board members from May to November. The
59 provisions of that statute override any contrary provisions of law, including the City Charter.
60
61 The proposed ordinance would change the election date for the mayor, councilmembers,
62 and school board members from May to November, beginning in 2008. Elections to be held
63 under current law in May 2008 would instead be held in November 2008. As a transition
64 measure, state law provides that incumbents whose tenns would otherwise expire as of June
65 30, 2008 would remain in office until their successors elected in November 2008 take office on
66 January 1, 2009.
67
68
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
69 Virginia, on the
day of
, 2006.
Approved As To Legal
Sufficiency:
::e~~
City Attorney's Office
CA9774
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Council Election ORD
R-5
June 6, 2006
.r~~
lll'!%i:f.....'.'.:..; A......\~
pi <:"\ ... ".""i~}
l'\~.'" ..j
,.':,-. Itl)
-"~.'-.;.""!llIiIIF~. p
~~...~-~..~
~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Section 10-1 of the City Code by Adding
One Precinct, Changing the Boundary Lines of Two Precincts, and Moving Three
Polling Locations
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background: The Virginia Beach Electoral Board voted on February 3, 2006 and
May 9, 2006 to create one new precinct and make other boundary line and polling
location changes. Growth and development in the City, along with DMV voter registration
opportunities, have increased the size of the Davis Corner Precinct. The Davis Corner
Precinct is near the precinct size limit set by law, and it needs to be split. As a result, the
Haygood Precinct will be created. The Board also made boundary line changes to reduce
the Great Neck precinct and equalize the Great Neck and Colony Precincts. The polling
locations forthe Kingston and Red Wing precincts will be permanently changed, and the
polling location for the Brookwood precinct will be temporarily changed. These changes
are reflected in the attached maps, larger versions of which may be inspected at the Voter
Registrar's Office.
. Considerations: All of the locations in this list meet the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. These changes will become effective upon approval by
the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended
beginning with the November 7, 2006 General Election.
. Public Information: As required by Section 24.2-306 of the Code of Virginia
notice of this proposed change was published in the newspaper once a week for two
consecutive weeks. All voters in the precinct will receive new voter cards with the name
and address of the new polling location. An advertisement will be placed in the
newspaper prior to the General Election to be held November 7,2006.
.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Summary of changes
Maps A-E
Recommended Action: Adoption
Submitting Department/Agency: Voter Reg istra r.J:/flif
City Manage~ t, ~~
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
Map A - Davis Corner Precinct
The Davis Corner Precinct must be divided due to increased number of registered
voters. An additional polling location at Haygood United Methodist Church located
at 4713 Haygood Road has been secured for the new Haygood Precinct and
precinct lines will be adjusted accordingly.
Map B - Great Neck Precinct
The Great Neck Precinct polling location will be split by placing the entire Bay
Island into the Colony Precinct at Lynnhaven Colony Congregational Church
located at 2217 W. Great Neck Road.
Map C - Kinaston Precinct
The Kingston Precinct polling location currently located at Kingston Elementary
School will be moved to King's Grant Presbyterian Church located at 745 Little
Neck Road. This will provide larger parking facilities and more voting room.
Map D - Red Wino Precinct
The Red Wing Precinct polling location currently located at Birdneck Elementary
School will be moved to the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #8, located at 961 S.
Birdneck Road. This will provide larger parking facilities and more voting room.
Map E - Brookwood Precinct
The Brookwood Precinct polling location currently located at Brookwood
Elementary School will temporarily be moved to Bow Creek Recreation Center
located at 3427 Clubhouse Road. This move is due to construction of the new
Brookwood Elementary School.
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY
2 CODE BY ADDING ONE PRECINCT, CHANGING THE
3 BOUNDARY LINES OF TWO PRECINCTS, AND MOVING
4 THREE POLLING LOCATIONS
5
6 SECTION AMENDED: ~ 10-1
7
8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
9 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
10
11 That Section 10-1 of the City Code is hereby amended and
12 reordained, to read as follows:
13 Sec. 10-1. Establishment of precincts and pollinq places.
14
There are hereby established in the city the following
15 precincts and their respective polling places, as set forth below:
16
Precinct
Polling Place
17
Alanton
Alanton Elementary School
18
Aragona
Kemps Landing Magnet School
19
Arrowhead
Arrowhead Elementary School
20
Avalon
Avalon Church of Christ
21
Baker
Ebenezer Baptist Church
22
Bayside
Bayside Elementary School
23
Bellamy
Salem Middle School
24
Blackwater
Blackwater Fire Station
25
Bonney
Center for Effective Learning
26
Brandon
Brandon Middle School
27
Brookwood
Broo]C1.iOod Elcfficnt.J.ry Sohool
28
Bow Creek Recreation Center
29
Buckner
Holy Spirit Catholic Church
1
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Cape Henry
Research and Enlightenment Building
(Edgar Cayce Library)
Capps Shop
Back Bay Christian Assembly
Centerville
Centerville Elementary School
Chesapeake Beach
Bayside Baptist Church
College Park
College Park Elementary School
Colonial
Colonial Baptist Church
Colony
Lynnhaven
Church
Colony
Congregational
Corporate Landing
Corporate Landing Middle School
Courthouse
Courthouse Fire Station
Creeds
Creeds Fire Station
Cromwell
Salem United Methodist Church
Culver
Ocean Lakes High School
Dahlia
Green Run High School
Davis Corner
Bettie F. Williams Elementary School
Eastern Shore
Eastern Shore Chapel
Edinburgh
St. Aidan's Episcopal Church
Edwin
Kempsville Recreation Center
Fairfield
Kempsville Presbyterian Church
Foxfire
Princess Anne Middle School
Glenwood
Glenwood Elementary School
Great Neck
All Saints Episcopal Church
Green Run
Green Run Elementary School
Haygood
Haygood United Methodist Church
2
55 Holland
56 Homestead
57 Hunt
58 Indian Lakes
59 Kings Grant
60 Kingston
61
62 Lake Smith
63 Landstown
64 Larkspur
65 Linkhorn
66 London Bridge
67 Lynnhaven
68 Magic Hollow
69 Malibu
70 Manor
71 Mt. Trashmore
72 North Beach
73 Ocean Lakes
74 Ocean Park
75 Oceana
76
77 Old Donation
78 Pembroke
79 Plaza
Holland Elementary School
Providence Presbyterian Church
Princess Anne Recreation Center
Indian Lakes Elementary School
St. Nicholas Catholic Church
Kingoton Elcmcnt~ry School
King's Grant Presbyterian Church
Bayside Church of Christ
Landstown Community Church
St. Andrews United Methodist Church
Virginia Beach Community Chapel
London Bridge Baptist Church
Grace Bible Church
Roma Lodge No. 254
Malibu Elementary School
Providence Elementary School
Windsor Woods Elementary School
Galilee Episcopal Church
Ocean Lakes Elementary School
Bayside Community Recreation Center
Scott Memorial United Methodist
Church
Old Donation Center for Gifted
Pembroke Elementary School
Lynnhaven Elementary School
3
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
Pleasant Hall
Kempsville Baptist Church Pleasant
Hall Annex
Point O'View
Kempsville Church of Christ
Red Wing
Birdncclc Elcfficnt.J.ry School
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #8
Reon
Woodstock Elementary School
Rock Lake
Salem Elementary School
Rosemont Forest
Rosemont Forest Elementary School
Roundhill
Salem High School
Rudee
Virginia Beach Volunteer Rescue
Squad Building
Seatack
Seatack Community Recreation Center
Shannon
Church of the Ascension
Shelburne
Christopher Farms Elementary School
Shell
Unity Church of Tidewater
Shelton Park
Shelton Park Elementary
Sherry Park
St. Matthews Catholic Church
Sigma
Red Mill Elementary School
South Beach
Contemporary Art Center of Virginia
Stratford Chase
Community United Methodist Church
Strawbridge
Strawbridge Elementary School
Tallwood
Tallwood Elementary School
Thalia
Thalia Elementary School
Thoroughgood
Independence Middle School
Timberlake
White Oaks Elementary School
4
105
Trantwood
Virginia Beach Christian Church
106
Upton
Three Oaks Elementary School
107
Village
Thalia Lynn Baptist Church
108
Windsor Oaks
Windsor Oaks Elementary School
109
Witchduck
Bayside Presbyterian Church
110
Wolfsnare
Virginia Beach Christian Life Center
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
Central Absentee
Voter Precinct
Agriculture/Voter Registrar Building
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
That the boundaries of the Davis Corner and Haygood Precincts
118 shall be as set forth in the attached map labeled, "Map A; Davis
119 Corner Precinct Split: New Precinct Name - Haygood; Haygood United
120 Methodist Church," and the boundaries of the Great Neck and Colony
121 Precincts shall be as set forth in the attached map labeled, "Map
122 B; Great Neck & Colony Precincts Boundary Change." Both maps have
123 been exhibited to City Council and are on file in the Voter
124 Registrar's Office.
125 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
126 Virginia, on this
day of
, 2006.
!J
Voter Registrar
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS:
c~~kice
5
CAI0054
PA/GG/ORDRES/Proposed/lO-l Polling Locations ORD
R-2
June 6, 2006
6
.,.,,~' ~-- 9~-"-'~'
"~~. .'.i' ... ~ . -. -
/' ::...~~..')i, .
h"~j;g!f-~~~~, ,l~~(.
/i';;'/;." .'-"c,.i ~t)- __,/"
r;~"""
.1
MAPA.
r.';
,:
,
.~
~; ':,',-:,. .<
\~
'>:1.
.cJSE;,. '\
;/
./
"
"-: ~~'~tr..L~_
~ r'-t
" (?:'. $)';.'/ ~...__..
/7 oi~/ 't..
"~t~~J"/ /,i!~, \ _,._.,;,:;
~<~\~1
" i'~"'" If.
'b~~( '. "'*tJ~,
Jston~'i~#: . .~~
~ \"'_>;~ t,~re ~
.07 \~.. r" ~ h
, ,~\~. i.:~::t~.~ i/ .1
.../ ~/ .. Q\}"~.d~~.;:"'ln.
4'~! ., ~. cr-
/' ll)!~
,.
MAPB
GREAT NECK & COLONY PRECINCTS
BOUNDARY CHANGE
,,\
:.:~J \\ /
\..,-
~.~~.:~~;:-~..~
,.. j,.~' l
:.. j..;;,.~"'-;-
i ~
--
'._"..._~,,_....~t'''D>.......
..;("-\ ..
~/ .~ .:,,"";"A,.,~.-rc'1j,...~:"'-
'f
'"
.. --....'.........~.
...-..._,---,----._._"'~..-..-~~~,......-.-.._-_.--,.
..........\
/....
1-'
~.,,-
::i
'.--,' :-'
'~:.'.? .
t4_.~!
~),.
.~
'if
.~,
~J!
~~
.i^d:.;~""~:="
~~\\~W.. ,.1 toli. "'~"".'i!
, . c:-t....--... . - ~
,l---.-.~~- ib 1I:~~~.~.~a.:::::~~~
/
~e:.:i1..f>..,.,...
~"I....."
.'4-.
MAPC
$'/ .~.
'.'1>..'
....~.1'.4.J-~" ~
Jfo....~..... .~.. '. '.."
r 4" "q>
.,.... ~'d.' ...... ",f' . '
.~~~ ,. ~ c-
. ~.~ . .Jbi"
.....~ .
'<,~,,_'l"
~~ KINGSTON PRECINCT:
~ POLLING LOCATION CHANGE
~ KING'S GRANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
o
'."
'~
~.. ~
'\... s
...!,
~~'"
~~~~,~~
~t
~.
~,
+
~
~
.".~ ~1/
"".., ~;:'
11 ~'."""',..t
. . ' ,.~,,,s.~~
l;0031f ."
::'~..,. ,/ ..l,9lo.", ii'
"".;9c ,:", .e~ . ~(..
/"~\ ~'~'~.'~"<:~~~
~,
~', ~/~ "
o.\~ ..'"'
i~ "',~~,G~J'"
cd: "\.
,"
,'-C' : ,
ifllW~
QOOS
'~,~ '
~'1-"'D""'t<.""
l:lt~....;,
"'!'''1:'i~.L " ;
~~ II
.~8.",
'~PJ;~~~. " .$)~!j./
"ot "
'J
\~
g'fr".'
.iw~~,l
,,~
.. \'.
,~...~
i ~"11'
o
t~~
'"
tP.~ ~~~,'
.l ..~
~~ ~~
~~-' .
\"
';~,
, G '\""
. ' \,q"'.
~ ,a~ ~\ ',\
rtaa'i.~
"a~~
"""f~
,,;
O'i~
tat.ll\iJrl:CI' ,~
).lI<<JlalIl:RY~ ~~'.6.
",...,' cr -.'!:t
CH(~Jl fUliST ~ { 4--:
cr~1
f:lllo~~~-t. ~
. \U'Il~~,,"
,
""lM"
\f.' .~
\f> i:)Iij.'tiitil>-
\1.\
MAPD
RED WING PRECINCT:
\---...,;,;........
!._~":,, "~'~cr
"- ".~"t. ..~..L
"~~.o;:f'-.-
.....:i.
';Vi
f
\
,
"
Corpor te Landing;;!
070 ..
~':i
~.j3 ~
a /:;.~,~ ;,f
\
,.'\..
j'~'"
.<~//
~v/.,
,.._'~ :':1~/.;..'
\,...';...tl!
/.....~
of'lll)
~
H~':l,!,~~t
!~c=.
MAPE
fJo
L"O"'f'!
!~~\
e"8'~ ~
o
I~.!~i\ ,
, ~ l ::!e :t.
t"."t:;~~;\:::',;d'
~~'~'i~,
'"~
a~~ 9-
i ~ '1' -,~~~c
".,~-'~.='~~ . '~.fo
, ",-~~..,
1" ~~-i
London\"t
"lBdd
,lb .'-'
\0008
"O>"";C"-~l
'-l~rf""""""
~-p,\',}
e
1lI'1"
t
.~
o~
,.... ,
it!.,.,.-"~..c,,,..
{,,_f'!!,<<;Il.lIQ:lQIL5
\\
\.~"~--~
,
-,
'-~
\!'J,~
~~
~~
'.:Jt.
,
l'f~:
..,'v..~"'-"-~-;"_':,;.,.
I;
Jt
/}'
;c-,,' c?;'
," ~.;"""'~ ~,,~;.,
C1<,,"''l?,, ~~..-
5;' Ul~;/;>/-' "
~! ~.; $; Green.';~f
,.~ ;'~:~
/\ (~~'-'\~'\ '.
" ,~"'" ,~*'
':;,~- - '\.~ '-~ :'.._~
tit
Q(;r
~i
~}
5{
s
~
fi
""
I:,
:!It"
.~
.t"
3
~.....:"\
"'O\"'t".Be~-:"\
'.~~~.'~;"~.~21
,.0:;-....-. ..,.,1' ".-%',
(;:5 -;2'.,
~;,t-.. - ," )JJ
t.t.~"'1.""...y..,..o:.." .:;;;
.......~v~~..:;_..I
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
An Ordinance to Dissolve and Reconstitute the Virginia Beach Arts and
Humanities Commission
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background: By ordinance adopted May 7, 1979, City Council ratified and
confirmed the creation of the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission. City
Council amended and reordained the ordinance on August 12, 1997.
A majority of the commission's eleven members are serving their final terms and
will not be eligible for reappointment under the current ordinance. The loss of so many
members could create continuity problems and could hinder the commission's ability to
advise City Council.
. Considerations: The attached ordinance will amend the ordinance that created
the commission by dissolving and then reconstituting the commission. Members will
serve four-year terms (instead of the current two-year terms), with several of the initial
appointments to be for lesser terms so as to stagger the expirations of terms.
Notwithstanding the provisions of City Code S 2-3, which imposes term limits on
appointees to boards and commissions, City Council will have the discretion to appoint
a member to more than two consecutive terms if Council determines that the
reappointments serve the best interests of the commission by promoting continuity.
. Public Information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the
normal Council agenda process.
. Attachments: Ordinance.
Requested by Vice-Mayor Jones
City Manager:
1
2
3
AN ORDINANCE
THE VIRGINIA
COMMISSION
TO DISSOLVE
BEACH ARTS
AND RECONSTITUTE
AND HUMANITIES
4
WHEREAS, by ordinance adopt ed May 7, 1979, City Council
5 ratified and confirmed the creation of the Virginia Beach Arts
6 and Humanities Commission (the "Commission");
7 WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted August 12, 1997, City Council
8 amended and reordained that ordinance; and
9
WHEREAS, a maj ori ty of the members of the commission are
10 serving their final terms and will not be eligible for
11 reappointment under the current ordinance.
12
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
13 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
14
1.
That the current Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities
15 Commission is hereby dissolved and reconstituted, in accordance
16
wit the provisions set forth below.
Upon adoption of this
17 ordinance, the terms of the current members of the commission
18
shall
expire,
but
those members
shall
be
eligible
for
19 reappointment to the newly reconstituted commission.
20
2.
That
"An Ordinance Ratifying and Confirming the
21 Creation of the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission
22 and Providing for its Composition, Terms of Members, Conducting
23 of Business, Etc.," as adopted by City Council on May 7, 1979,
24 and as amended and reordained by City Council on August 12,
25 1997, is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows:
26 Section 1. Creation
27
There is hereby created an advisory commission to be known
28 as the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission (the
29 "Commission").
3 0 Section 2. Composi tion
31
32
The Commission shall consist of eleven (11) commissioners
appointed by City Council.
To be eligible for appointment, each
33 commissioner shall maintain a primary residence in the City of
34 Virginia Beach. A commissioner may concurrently hold membership
35 on the corporate board of an arts group in the Commonwealth of
36 Virginia; provided, however, that the commissioner shall be
37 required to abstain from participating in the Commission's
38 discussion or vote on any matter involving the arts group on
39 whose corporate board the commissioner serves.
40 Section 3. Ter.ms of Commissioners
41
42
The term of each commissioner shall begin on July 1 of the
year In which the commissioner is appointed.
The terms of
43 commissioners shall be for t..:o (2) four (4) years; provided,
44
however,
that
for the initial appointments to the newly
45 reconstituted commission, the terms shall be staggered, as
46 follows: two (2) members shall be appointed for one-year terms,
47 three (3) members shall be appointed for two-year t~rms, three
2
48 (3) members shall be appointed for three-year terms, and three
49
(3) members shall be appointed for four-year terms.
Prior to
50 Junc 1 of c.J.ch year, tho City Council ',Jill .J.ppoint oilr (6)
51 cornrniooioncro in cT:cn numbcrcd YC.:lr.:J .:md fi 7C (5) cOFffiRio.:Jioncr.:J
52
in odd numbcrcd YC.J.r.:J.
They shall hold office during their
53 respective terms at the pleasure of the City Councilor until
54 their successors have been appointed and have taken office.
55 Notwithstanding the provisions of City Code ~ 2-3, City Council
56 shall have the discretion to appoint a member to more than two
57 (2) consecutive terms if Council concludes that reappointment
58 would serve the best interests of the commission by promoting
59 continuity.
60 COMMENT
61 This amendment changes the terms of members from two years to four years. The initial
62 appointments, however, will be staggered as follows: two members will be appointed for one-year
63 terms; three members will be appointed for two-year terms; three members will be appointed for
64 three-year terms; and three members will be appointed for four-year terms. Each of these
65 members will be eligible for a full four-year appointment following the expiration of their initial
66 terms.
67 City Code ~ 2-3 imposes a term limit of two four-year terms on Council appointees. This
68 amendment, however, provides that Council nevertheless may appoint a member to more than two
69 consecutive terms if Council concludes that reappointment would serVe the best interests of the
70 commission by promoting continuity.
71
72 Section 4. Vacancies
73
All vacancies on the Commission occurring by reason of
74
resignation,
removal,
or
otherwise
shall
be
filled
by
75 appointment by the City Council for the remainder of the
76 unexpired term.
3
77 Section 5. Election of Officers; Term
78
At the Annual Meeting in July of each year, the members of
79 the Commission shall elect from among the commissioners the
80
following officers who shall,
collectively,
constitute the
81
Executive Committee:
A Chair, a Vice-Chair, a Secretary and a
82
Treasurer.
All officers shall serve for terms of one (1) year
83 or until their successor is elected: provided, however, that no
84 officer shall serve more than two (2) consecutive one-year terms
85 in the same office.
86
Sccond, .:l pro~..ioion io .:lddod '.:hioh limi to officcro to
87 :Jcn..ing to.IO (2) conoocuti ~:o onc yc.], r torffiO in tho O.:lffiO officc.
88 COMMENT
8 9 This is a housekeeping amendment that deletes redundant language from the previous
90 sentence.
91
92 Section 6. Meetings
93
Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission of the Executive
94 Commi ttee, regular meetings shall be held in May and July and
95
not less than six (6) times annually.
A regular meeting in July
96 shall be known as the Annual Meeting and shall be for the
97 purpose of electing officers, receiving written reports of
98 officers and committees, and conducting any other business that
99 may arise.
4
100 Section 7. Quorum.
101
A maj ori ty of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum
102 for the transaction of business.
103 Section 8. Powers of Executive Committee
104
105
106
107
108
The powers of the Commission shall be exercised by the
Executive Committee after approval by the Commission.
Section 9. Conduct of Business
The Commission may adopt bylaws, for the conduct of its
business; provided such bylaws are consistent with this with
109 this ordinance and Robert's rules of Order.
110 Section 10. Purpose of Commission
III
The purpose of the Commission is to serve in an advisory
112 capacity to the Virginia Beach City Council; to encourage the
113 development of programs in the arts and humanities in the city
114 of Virginia Beach; to bring into closer cooperation all local
115 and regional arts organizations for the benefit of all citid:ens
116 of Virginia Beach; to provide information and assistance to such
117 organizations when feasible; to serve as the coordinating group
118 through which shall be channeled all City funds appropriated to
119
organizations
promoting
the
arts
and humanities;
and
to
120 coordinate efforts to secure federal and state funding for
121 programs in the arts and humanities.
122
The scope of this Commission is limited to groups which
123 quality as a registered non-profit tax exempt group and which
5
124 have, as a stated purpose, the furtherance of the arts and
125 humanities through the provision of programming and/or services
126 designed to benefit the citizens of Virginia Beach.
127 Section 11. Reports
128 The Commission shall make the following reports to the City
129 Council and shall provide recommendations to City Council from
130 time to time as may be required:
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
1)
Budget recommendations for each ensuing fiscal year by
December 31 of each calendar year;
Such financial reports as may be directed or requested
by the Director of Finance;
Reports of the attendance record of each commissioner,
in accord with the requirements of Section 2-3.1 of
the City Code; and
An annual report of the Commission's activities by May
15th of each year.
2)
3)
4 )
140 Section 12. Conflict
141
This Ordinance,
amended,
supercedes
"An Ordinance
as
142 Ratifying and Confirming the Creation of the Virginia Beach Arts
143 and Humanities Commission and Providing for its Composition,
144 Terms of Members, Conducting of Business, etc.," adopted by City
145 Council on May 7, 1979 and readopted by City Council on August
146 12, 1997, and also supercedes the provisions of any other
6
147 ordinance or resolution, or the provisions of any bylaws, which
148 may be in conflict with this ordinance.
149
150
151
Adopted by
Virginia on the
the Council
day of
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
:;e~
City Attorney,l";;;ice
CAI0060
H:\PA\GG\OrdRes\AHC ORD
R-2
June 7, 2006
of the City of Virginia
, 2006.
7
Beach,
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: ORDINANCE APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE PHASE III PROJECT
DOCUMENTS FOR THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT
MEETING DATE: June 13,2006
o Background: The Town Center Project (the "Project") has been a long-term
priority for the City. The City Council first recognized the importance of the
Project in the Central Business District of the City when it adopted the
Comprehensive Plan on November 4, 1997. On November 23, 1999, the City
Council adopted the Central Business District - South Tax Increment Financing
District with the intent of entering into an agreement with a developer and using
the funds to help pay for the City's participation in the Project. At its February 8,
2000 meeting, the City Council approved a Development Agreement for Phase I
of the Project containing the rights and obligations of the Virginia Beach
Devel~pment Authority (the "Authority") and Town Center Associates, L.L.C. (the
"Developer"). Phase I of the Project, comprised of a 272,000 square foot office
tower, 109,000 square feet of commercial space, a 176-room hotel, an 18,000
square foot bank headquarters building, a 1 ,284-car public parking garage, and
public streets, sidewalks and utilities, has been completed.
o On June 3,2003, the City Council approved the Phase II Development
Agreement containing the rights and obligations of the Authority and the
Developer with respect to Phase II of the Project. One of the blocks associated
with the second phase of the Project, the Dick's Sporting Goods Store, opened
in April of 2004 with an adjoining 574-space public parking facility, and 18,000
square feet of retail space. Other development includes a 1 O-story 341-unit
luxurY apartment complex with an 851-space public parking facility, a public
plaza and 194,000 square feet of office/retail/entertainment space. Phase II of
the Project is complete.
o On October 12, 2004, the City Council approved acquisition of a Portion of Block
6 of Town Center for the Sandler Center for the Performing Arts, and authorized
award of the Design & Construction contract under the PPEA for the Theater to
Clancy & Theys.
o On September 13, 2005, the City Council approved Phase III of the Town
Center.
o Phase III of Town Center will be a multi-block, multi-facility mixed-use
development consisting of the following elements:
Block 6 will have approximately 14,000 square feet of retail and 56 loft
condominiums adjacent to the Sandler Center for the Performing Arts.
Block 7 will comprise an approximately 37 -story high-rise, including
approximately 36,500 square feet of retail space and lobby for the Hotel, 25,000
square feet of meeting and pre-function space, 236-room full service Westin
Hotel, 119 luxury residential condominiums, and 947-space parking garage, with
735 public spaces.
Block 9 will contain an approximate 75,000 to 100,000 square foot building of
multi-use space.
o Considerations:
To facilitate the construction of the Phase III improvements, certain modifications
to the Phase III Development Agreement are outlined on the attached summary.
o Public Information: Public Information for this item will be handled through the
normal Council agenda process.
o Alternatives: The Phase III Documents reflect the City's on-going commitment
to the long-term priority of developing a Town Center for the City. There are
certainly other alternatives to development of the Central Business District.
However, few if any alternatives accomplish Council's stated goals for the area
or provide the level of quality proposed.
o Recommendations: Approve the modifications to the Documents relating to
Phase III of the Town Center (Central Business District) and request approval
and execution by the Virginia Beach Development Authority.
o Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval of attached Ordinance1
Submitting Department/Agency: Economic Developme l! ft-u.L" Jrr NlMfL ~
City Manager: ~ k-. O(JcJIt. ()
Exhibit A
SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS
TO PHASE III PROJECT DOCUMENTS
1. Block 7
_ Parking Garage guaranteed maximum price increased to $17,173,588
Authority to pay actual interest portion of Parking Garage and Conference
Unit acquisition cost, regardless of guaranteed maximum price, if interest
portion exceeds Developer's estimates solely due to rate increase (above 5%
per annum)
Authority obligated to purchase Block 7 West Retail upon substantial
completion of shell space and rest of Block 7
. Purchase price based on actual construction costs with a
guaranteed maximum price of $2.8M (cold dark shell)
. Developer obligated to re-purchase after 3 years for Authority's
cost plus cost-of-carry
. If Authority exchanges Block 7 West Retail for Block 2,
Developer obligated to purchase Block 2 after 3 years for
Authority's all-in cost to obtain Block 2, plus cost-of-carry
2. Block 6E
_ _ Developer to acquire Block 6E by December 31, 2006 for $523,000 purchase
pnce
_ If Authority does not deliver Block 6E land by December 31, 2006, Developer
can defer $200,000 of purchase price
. Developer to pay the $200,000 deferral to Authority upon
McCormick & Schmick rent commencement date unless
Authority's late delivery caused Developer to miss shell delivery
deadline to McCormick & Schmick
. If shell delivery deadline missed, then Developer keeps portion of
$200,000 attributable to lost rent incurred because of missed
deadline
Developer to pay parking fee of $8,942 per residential condominium unit
located on Block 6E
ConstructionlReimbursement Alternative (RA) payment increased to
$226,000 per year
3. Block 9
_ Acquisition date extended to September 1,2010
_ Construction commencement date extended to December 31, 2012
_ Construction completion date extended to September 1,2014
_ Construction/Reimbursement Alternative (RA) payments due beginning
December, 2010 (unless additional assessments in Phase III sufficient to
credit)
4. Option Agreement
- Extend Option Period to September 1, 2010
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING MODIFICATIONS
TO PHASE III PROJECT DOCUMENTS FOR
THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT
WHEREAS, on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach (the "City")
7 and the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the
8 "Authori ty"), the City Manager and City staff have engaged in
9 extensive negotiations with representatives of Armada/Hoffler
10 Development, Company L.L.C., and its affiliates~ regarding the
11 development of a Central Business District Proj ect known as "The
12 Town Center of Virginia Beach" (the "Project");
13 WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 2896F adopted September 13 2005,
14 after finding that Phase III of the Project will stimulate the
15 City's economy, increase public revenues, enhance public amenities,
16 further the City's development objectives for the Central Business
17 District and provide necessary components to further the goals
18 contained in the City's "Guidelines for Evaluation of Investment
19 Partnership for Economic Development," the City Council (a)
20 approved development documents for Phase III of the Project (the
21 "Phase III Project Documents"), (b) requested that the Authority
22 approve and execute the Phase III Project Documents, and (c)
23 authorized the City Manager to execute a Support Agreement between
24 the City and the Authority supporting the Authority's obligations
25 contained in the Phase III Project Documents;
26
WHEREAS, Phase III of the Project includes Block 7, a
27 structure comprised of a 947-space parking garage, with 735 public
28 spaces(the "Block 7 Parking Garage"), 25,000 square feet of ground
29 floor commercial space on the west side of the building (the ~Block
30 7 West Retail"), 11,500 square feet of additional ground floor
31 commercial space on the east side of the building, a 236-room full
32 service Westin hotel, a 25,000 square foot conference facility (the
33 "Conference Unit") and 119 luxury condominiums;
34 WHEREAS, Phase III of the Project also includes Block 6E, a
35 structure comprised of 14,000 square feet of ground floor
36 commercial space and 56 residential condominiums;
37 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Phase III Project Documents, Town
38 Center Associates, L.L.C. (~Developer") is obligated to construct
39 the Block 7 improvements and the Authority is obligated to purchase
40 the Block 7 Parking Garage and the Conference Unit from the
41 Developer upon their completion and upon completion of other Phase
42 III construction obligations;
43 WHEREAS, pursuant to an Option Agreement dated as of June 5,
44 2000, as amended, the Developer has an option to purchase certain
45 land from the Authority on the terms and conditions set forth
46 therein;
47
48
WHEREAS, the Developer
construction for the Block 7
incurred
additional
costs of
unforeseen
improvements due to
49 circumstances;
50 WHEREAS, to facilitate the Developer's construction of Phase
51 III of the Project, the Developer has requested that the Authority
52 modify the Phase III Project Documents (a) pertaining to the
53 determination of the Acquisition Cost as to the Block 7 Parking
54 Garage and the Conference Unit, (b) to provide that the guaranteed
55 maximum price for the Block 7 Parking Garage be increased to
56 $17,173,588, and (c) to provide for the acquisition by the
57 Authority of the Block 7 West Retail for an actual cost not to
58 exceed $2,857,705;
59 WHEREAS, the Developer and the Authority also wish to modify
60 the Phase III Project Documents pertaining to (a) Block 6E, (b) the
61 Option Agreement, c) certain of the milestone dates and related
62 rights pertaining to the development of Phase III, and (d) other
63 matters, all as set forth in the First Modification to Phase III
64 Development Agreement (the "Phase III Modification"), a summary of
65 which is ?ttached hereto as Exhibit A;
66 WHEREAS, the obligations of the Authority contained in the
67 Phase III Modification are supported by the City pursuant to a
68 Phase III Support Agreement, (a) with the traditional public
69 infrastructure costs of the Project to be funded, in part, through
70 the City's CIP and, in part, through the Authority's Economic
71 Development Investment Program monies and (b) with the other
72 obligations of the Authority structured to be paid, subj ect to
73 annual appropriation, by the available revenue from the TIF Fund,
74 from the revenue generated by the special tax district and by an
75 additional mechanism for the Developer to pay proj ected TIF
76 shortfalls;
77 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Phase III
78 Modification is desirable as it allows the Developer to enhance
79 Phase III of the Project; and
80 WHEREAS, the City Council hereby approves the Phase III
81 Modification and desires that the Authority pursue the preparation
82 of supplemental Phase III Project Documents to evidence the Phase
83 III Modification.
84 NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
85 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
86 1. In connection with the Virginia Beach Development
87 Authority's (the "Authority's") purchase of the 735-space public
88 parking g~rage (the "Block 7 Parking Garage") and the 25,000 square
89 foot conference facility (the "Conference Unit") to be constructed
90 on Block 7 of the Town Center Project pursuant to the development
91 documents for Phase III of the Town Center Project (the "Phase III
92 Project Documents"), the City Council approves the modification of
93 the Phase III Project Documents (a) to provide that the guaranteed
94 maximum price of the Block 7 Parking Garage be increased to
95 $17,173,588, and (b) pertaining to the interest portion of the
96 Acquisition Cost of the Block 7 Parking Garage and the Conference
97 Unit, as described in the First Modification to Phase III
98 Development Agreement (the "Phase III Modification"), a summary of
99 which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
100 2. The City Council approves the modification of the Phase
101 III Proj ect Documents to provide for the acquisition by the
102 Authority of the 25,000 square feet of ground floor commercial
103 space on the west side of the Block 7 building (the "Block 7 West
104 Retail") for an actual cost not to exceed $2,857,705, on the terms
105 described in the Phase III Modification.
106
3.
The City Council approves the additional modifications to
107 the Phase III Project Documents pertaining to (a) Block 6E, (b) the
108 Option Agreement, (c) certain of the milestone dates and related
109 rights pertaining to the development of Phase III, and (d) other
110 matters, all as set forth in the Phase III Modification.
111 4. On behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, the City Manager
112 and the City Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to proceed
113 wi th the _ preparation of any additional documents necessary and
114 appropriate to implement the Phase III Modification (the "Phase III
115 Modification Documents").
116
5.
The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to
117 execute and deliver any Phase III Modification Documents to which
118 the City is a necessary party so long as such Phase III
119 Modification Documents are consistent with the provisions herein
120 and are acceptable to the City Manager and the City Attorney.
121 6. The City Council requests and recommends that the
122 Authority adopt a Resolution consistent with this Ordinance
123 approving and authorizing the execution of the Phase III
124 Modification and any Phase III Modification Documents.
125
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
126 Virginia, on the
day of
, 2006.
CA9995
X:IOJD\REAL ESTATEICommercial ProjectslTown CenterlPhase III\ORD apprvng mod to Phase III Documents.doc
R-l
PREPARED: 06/02/06
\O(lLJUV
TO LEGAL
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
APPROVED AS TO AVAILABILITY
OF FUNDS
Q,tM-')O..{~J ~tP
Finance Department
Exhibit A
SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS
TO PHASE III PROJECT DOCUMENTS
l. Block 7
- Parking Garage guaranteed maximum price increased to $17,173,588
Authority to pay actual interest portion of Parking Garage and Conference
Unit acquisition cost, regardless of guaranteed maximum price, if interest
portion exceeds Developer's estimates solely due to rate increase (above 5%
per annum)
Authority obligated to purchase Block 7 West Retail upon substantial
completion of shell space and rest of Block 7
· Purchase price based on actual construction costs with a
guaranteed maximum price of$2.8M (cold dark shell)
· Developer obligated to re-purchase after 3 years for Authority's
cost plus cost-of-carry
· If Authority exchanges Block 7 West Retail for Block 2,
Developer obligated to purchase Block 2 after 3 years for
Authority's all-in cost to obtain Block 2, plus cost-of-carry
2. Block 6E
- Developer to acquire Block 6E by December 31,2006 for $523,000 purchase
pnce
If Authority does not deliver Block 6E land by December 31, 2006, Developer
can defer $200,000 of purchase price
· Developer to pay the $200,000 deferral to Authority upon
McCormick & Schmick rent commencement date unless
Authority's late delivery caused Developer to miss shell delivery
deadline to McCormick & Schmick
· If shell delivery deadline missed, then Developer keeps portion of
$200,000 attributable to lost rent incurred because of missed
deadline
. Developer to pay parking fee of $8,942 per residential condominium unit
located on Block 6E
ConstructionlReimbursement Alternative (RA) payment increased to
$226,000 per year
3. Block 9
- Acquisition date extended to September 1, 2010
- Construction commencement date extended to December 31, 2012
Construction completion date extended to September 1,2014
- ConstructionlReimbursement Alternative (RA) payments due beginning
December, 2010 (unless additional assessments in Phase III sufficient to
credit)
4. Option Agreement
- Extend Option Period to September 1,2010
1
,.-~~
,r:r~~~~~
~Cj"l'.' . -.'~'
(~f ~. '~.-\~)
<0" :::;,
\~~~~-~ 0' ~fiJ
"(~+~~~~~~"~J
~~:./
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
A Resolution Designating the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin as the Official
Marine Mammal of the City of Virginia Beach
ITEM:
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background: A Dolphin's Promise is a non-profit organization working in partnership with
the City to bring hundreds of life-size dolphin sculptures to Virginia Beach in an effort to raise
$1,000,0000 for cancer research. Ninety percent of the money raised will go to the Lance
Armstrong Foundation. The remaining ten percent will be donated to the Virginia Aquarium
Stranding Response Program.
. Considerations: Representatives of A Dolphin's Promise have approached City officials
and requested that the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin be designated as the official marine mammal of
the City. This resolution designates the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin as such.
. Public Il1formation: Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal
process involving the advertisement of the City Council agenda.
. Recommendation: Adoption
. Attachments: Resolution
Requested by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
Recommended Action: Appr~~al
City Manage~ ll.... ~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Requested by Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING
BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN AS THE
MAMMAL OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA
THE ATLANTIC
OFFICIAL MARINE
VIRGINIA BEACH,
WHEREAS, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are indigenous to the
9
shores of Virginia Beach;
10
WHEREAS, the arrival of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphins in
11 Virginia Beach is symbolic of the onset of the summer season;
12 WHEREAS, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins live in groups called
13 pods and form coherent, long-term social units similar to
14 families;
15
WHEREAS,
the
family-oriented nature
of the Atlantic
16 bottlenose dolphins, and their ability to coexist with many
17 other species of marine life in the ocean, mirror the qualities
18 of the citizens and the community of the City of Virginia Beach;
19 WHEREAS, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins beautify the Virginia
20 Beach oceanfront and serve as ambassadors of friendship; and
21
WHEREAS,
on June 14,
2005,
Ci ty Council adopted a
22 resolution to endorse A Dolphin's Promise, Inc., a nonprofit
23 citizen organization dedicated to bringing hundreds of life-size
24 dolphin sculptures to Virginia Beach in an effort to raise one
25 million dollars ($1,000,000) for cancer research (with a small
26 portion being donated to the Virginia Aquarium's St~anding
27 Response Program), by assisting with publicity for the dolphin
28
sculpture project.
The sculptures are replicas of the Atlantic
29 bottlenose dolphin.
30 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
31 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
32 That the official marine mammal of the City of Virginia
33 Beach, Virginia is hereby designated as the Atlantic bottlenose
34 dolphin, known scientifically as the Tursiops truncatus.
35
Adopted by the City Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia
36 this _ day of
, 2006.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
)[.4
City Attorney's Office
CA10038
GG\Ord&Res\Proposed\Dolphin resolution
R-3
June 2, 2006
2
~
r:~~I~;~~'
~ J'>.."'- -" ..'1,
(...z . ."',
(ui_ . :>=..
c.' . ....
t~ .-- ....J>
;:':-" . .,~ j..
...... ..~.~-..j'
~oy
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Annual Permit Renewal for Area Private and Non-Profit EMS Organizations
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background: Section 10.5-2 of the City code requires renewal of all existing
emergency medical services agency permits that are issued throughout the year
to the area's private and non-profit organizations operating emergency medical
services agencies or vehicles within the city limits. Annual renewal begins July 1
of each year and expires June 30 of the following year. Six emergency medical
services agencies are requesting renewal to continue their operations within the
City of Virginia Beach providing those levels of care currently authorized.
. Considerations: The following applications have been received and processed
by the Department of Emergency Medical Services for the operation of basic and
advanced life support agencies: Eastern Shore Ambulance Service, Lifeline
Ambulance Service, Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters, Network
Medical Systems, Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance Service and Medical
Transport. During the previous twelve months, the private emergency medical
services agencies performed non-emergency and inter-facility transports to
include both basic and advanced life support calls.
. Public Information: The public will be notified of the pending action via the
Council Agenda as printed in the Beacon.
. Alternatives: This is an annual administrative action. Failure to renew permits
would halt all non-emergency medical transport services within the City. Dozens
of patients daily would be without transportation. This is not a function provided
by the City's volunteer rescue squads.
. Recommendations: The Department of Emergency Medical Services
recommends approval of all permit applications.
. Attachments: Permit Applications
Recommended Action:
Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: ~) Z-d1~
~ Deparbnent of EMS - Bruce W. Edwards EMS Chief
City Manager: ~ · ~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
EMS AGENCY
PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
AGENCY NAME: Medical Transport
VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: 308 EXPIRES:
VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION:
ALS Ground Transport
(N on-emergency- Unrestricted)
and Emergency-Restricted)
ADDRESS: 5792 Arrowhead Drive, Suite 200
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
PHONE: 671-9302
PRESIDENT: Donald Jellig
MANAGER: Russell Blow
NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE:
s~
as
LJ
G.tOu.(...() Co.) ,"-' . TS
~ ~ $ ?A~ fc.4-c..:. €f;
COMMENTS:
q .1.\) i c.. vPr..... S ~I';) ) l( A-"i.)()L.
4M~ LA-ued ~''''-.Ie. U€'-D
IN ~.c~en..ve
~1\J6 c4tz.S
Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Vil1!inia
Emel1!encv Medical Services Re~ulations. 12 V AC 5-31. 2003. as amended?
~YES 0 NO
~~ ~-170<-<
ame itle
JYI <='1'2.
~ /VI1f/<( 0 Gt,
Date
sent By: LIFELINE;
5403817445;
Apr-25.0617:41;
Page 2/2
. ~
ClTY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ~J
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL' ~ERVICES
EMS AGENCY
PERMJi'RENEWAL APPLICATION
AGENCY NAME: Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc,
VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER:
EXPIRES:
VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSMCA TION: ALS Ground Transport
(Non-Emergency-Unrestricted
anctl!mqency-Restricted)
.' .:-.:-"......:
.,','.. .-..'-.
ADDRESS: 310 Bell Road
Chrlstiansburg, VA 24013
PBONE: - S40.382-1044
PRESIDENT: James C. Jones) Jr.
VlCEPRESIDENT: KI~.g. "be<.,.kete,:m:- Cek~lJ)
NUMBER OF PERMI'ITED VEHICLES BY TYPE: J 0 h/'ll ~ kill..f2<)
COMMENTS:
:1:'7:"::''-';::'' :. .:_..... ." -, ..".~,,::..,," ..:',', ... ._..~:.:...::::.~:..;.... .'J~:'::":::-,:",.a:;:~::f;:;
bus your ageacy comply with the minimum requiremeata as set rotthin.ilieVi~i8:' .'. .... ". ...-....:..:'..
EmeNenar Medical ~iees Ren.atioAl. 12 V AC 5-31.2003. 81 amended?
~YES 0 NO
~ 0h~-(?,~:!
Namel1'itle
~q/D {o
Date
~~';~?1;~~~Jr~)ffi;;1~t?~f(f!(;tWli{j
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
EMS AGENCY
PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
AGENCY NAME: Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance
VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: 509 EXPIRES: 6/"60/06
VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: Air Ambulance
(Emergency-Restricted)
ADDRESS: 600 Gresham Drive
Norfolk, VA 23507
PHONE: - 66B-~jOO' 3~- 2SOO
PRESIDENT:
David Bernd
KlkLny Colm.tuvuO" c..~\~;r4:PtiEfZ- ~NNeN
MANAGER:
NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEmCLES BY TYPE:
COMMENTS:
Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Vindnia
Emen~encv Medical Services Re2ulations. 12 V AC 5-31. 2003. as amended?
)(YES 0 NO
~~(./ 8,~ ~ NANN8--
N amelTitle IV
S~Ob
Date
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
EMS AGENCY
PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
AGENCY NAME: Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters
VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: 315 EXPIRES: J ~ Zro~
VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICA nON: ALS Ground Transport
(Inter-facility Emergency and
~on-emergency)
ADDRESS: 601 Children's Lane
Norfolk, VA 23507
PHONE:
668-7453
~~~oCer Vaugllon ~~ e.. Hijr
NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: "3
COMMENTS:
Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Vir2inia
Emel1!encv Medical Services Re2ulations. 12 V AC 5-31. 2003~ as amended?
tlYES
oNO
~s;,~;~
~
Date
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
EMS AGENCY
PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
AGENCY NAME: Eastern Shore Ambulance
VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: EXPIRES:
VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ALS Ground Transport
(N on- Emergency-Unrestricted
and Emergency-Restricted)
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 6
8426 Sugarhill Lane
Sanford, VA 23426
PHONE:
787-824-5858
PRESIDENT:
DClh~ T~Jlol
(Y\ " C T-to.._e. \ en. ~ ro..~ \(. CS
VICE PRESIDENT:
l\" he., mQ...("-\.\n
~fM'gMet f~. T~ylQr - ~\.d" \ '5~ o~
NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: '-.0 r,r()U.nd A ro~\o..f\c...e..
COMMENTS:
Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Vindnia
Emel1!encv Medical Services Re2ulations. 12 V AC 5-31. 2003. as amended?
rJ! YES 0 NO
~~n ~n~~n.~h.l L\\h'[\~ \-\.~.
NamelTitle \
l..\ .1.5. Dls>
Date
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
EMS AGENCY
PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
AGENCY NAME: Network Medical
VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: EXPIRES:
VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ALS Non-transport
ADDRESS: 1533 Technology Drive
Chesapeake, Va 23320
PHONE: 757-285-3236
PRESIDENT: Norman Pool"
VICE PRESIDENT:
Susan Pool.
NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEmCLES BY TYPE: J A L S /+rr7 -5li I WtCQ.
~ e.-. m&"c.J2 5WiJr
COMMENTS:
Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Virsdnia
Emel"2encv Medical Services Reeulations. 12 V AC 5-31. 2003. as amended?
riis 0 NO
iJ'iiP~
Date
I \1~
SCALE: 1" = 200'
PREPARED BY PAN ENG. DRAFT. 02-FEB-2006
r1.).l~"'~
,0~~"'.~.~~~-Y.~
.~~rtJ.;Ti. '-<:,n~.{~)
}5t~: . :-;~--~~~
%~:.-, '~-~~{Jj
~t~~_.;.f
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
Encroachment request into City property known as Lake Wesley located
at the rear of 528 Kerry Lane by the adjacent property owners, Carl A.
Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background:
Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger have requested permission to
construct, and maintain a proposed 8' x 16' pier extension with a 16' x 16' deck
with 18' x 18' roof (Gazebo) and maintain two (2) existingfloating piers, one (1)
fixed pier, one (1) boat lift, seven (7) mooring pilings and rip rap in City property
known as Lake Wesley located at the rear of their property at 528 Kerry Lane,
Virginia Beach, Virginia.
. Considerations:
Staff has determined that the existing encroachments do not meet the Public
Works Specification and Standards, Section 12.11 Waterfront Construction of
Piers and Docks - which specify that a twenty-five foot (25') set back from the
channel is required. The encroachments that exceed the specifications
referenced above are existing floating encroachments and not fixed
encroachments. One of the conditions in the agreement address the removal of
the encroachments upon notice by the City to the owner and that the owner will
bear all cost and expense. Upon investigation, there are similar encroachments
in said lake.
. Public Information:
Advertisement of City Council Agenda
. Alternatives:
Approve the encroachments as presented, deny the encroachments or add
conditions as desired by Council.
. Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the existing encroachments and denial of the
proposed 8' x 16' pier and deck with gazebo.
. Attachments:
Ordinance, Agreement, Plat, Location Map and Pictures.
Recommended Action: Denial
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate 9Ci( tj ~
City Manager:~ v... ~~
1 Requested by Department of Public Works
2
3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE
4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO
5 CITY PROPERTY KNOWN AS LAKE
6 WESLEY LOCATED AT THE REAR OF
7 528 KERRY LANE BY CARL A.
8 EASON AND KATHERINE F.
9 RIPBERGER, THEIR HEIRS,
10 ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN
11 TITLE
12
13 WHEREAS, Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger desire to
14 construct and maintain a proposed 8'x 16' pier extension with a
15 16' x 16' deck with 18' x 18' roof (Gazebo) and maintain two (2)
16 existing floating piers, one (1) fixed pier, one (1) boat lift,
17 seven (7) mooring pilings and rip rap in City property known as
18 Lake Wesley at the rear of their property located at 528 Kerry
19 Lane, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
20
WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to ~~ 15.2-
21 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to
22 authorize temporary encroachments upon the City's property
23 subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe.
24 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
25 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
26 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof
27 contained in ~~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950,
28 as amended, Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger, their
29 heirs, assigns and successors In title are authorized to
30 construct and maintain temporary encroachments for a proposed
31 8'x16' pier extension with a 16'x16' deck with 18'x18'roof
32 (Gazebo) and maintain two (2) existing floating piers, one (1)
33 fixed pier, one (1) boat lift, seven (7) mooring pilings and rip
34 rap in a portion of City property known as Lake Wesley as shown
35 on the map entitled: "PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT SHORELINE
36 IMPROVEMENTS FOR CARL A. EASON AND KATHERINE F. RIPBERGER, LOT
37 15, SCHOONER QUAY AT CROATAN BEACH DISTRICT, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
38 (M.B. 160 PG. 18) DATE: MARCH 22, 2005," a copy of which is on
39 file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is
40 made for a more particular description; and
41 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments
42 are expressly subj ect to those terms , conditions and criteria
43 contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach
44 and Carl A. Eason and Katherine F. Ripberger (the "Agreement"),
45 which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and
46 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his
47 authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the
48 Agreement; and
49 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in
50 effect until such time as Carl A. Eason and Katherine F.
51 Ripberger and the City Manager or his authorized designee
52 execute the Agreement.
2
53
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
54 Virginia,
on
the
day
of
2006.
CA - 9858
PREPARED: 2/23/06
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
QoNY\[S C. ~USfn ~
~TURE
f/J) /fad .F4f1j
DEPARTMENT
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
bq.lJJW~
CITY ATTORNEY
X: I OlD I REAL ESTATEIEncroachmentslpw OrdinanceslCA9858 Eason_Ripberger.doc
3
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES
UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(e) (4)
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 13th day of January, 2006, by and between the
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and CARL
A. EASON and KATHERINE F. RIPBERGER.. THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND
SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one.
WIT N E SSE T H:
That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of
land designated and described as "Lot 15" Schooner Quay at Croatan" and being further
designated and described as 528 Kerry Lane, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451;
WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a proposed
8'xI6' pier extension with a 16'xI6' deck with 18'xI8'roof (Gazebo) and maintain two (2)
existing floating piers, one (1) fixed pier, one (1) boat lift, seven (7) mooring pilings and rip rap,
"Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach;
WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is
necessary that the Grantee encroach into City property known as Lake Wesley, "The
Encroachment Area"; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary
Encroachment within The Encroachment Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits
accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in
GPIN 2426-29-3244-0000
hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the
Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and
maintaining the Temporary Encroachment.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be
constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and
the.City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is
more particularly described as follows, to wit:
,
A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as
shown on that certain plat entitled: "PROPOSED
ENCROACHMENT SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
CARL A. EASON AND KATHERINE F. RIPBERGER LOT 15,
SCHOONER QUAY AT CROATAN BEACH DISTRICT,
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (M.B. 160 PG.18) DATE: MARCH 22,
2005"," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to
which reference is made for a more particular description.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment
herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30)
days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The
Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such
removal.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses
and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an
action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment.
2
It is further expressly underst()od and agreed that nothing herein contained shall
be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of
any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor
to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the
Grantee.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain
the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit
from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The
Encroachment Area.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and
keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed
necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured
or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability
insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance
policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days
written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of
the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or
contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment
must conform to the minimum setbacks requirements, as established by the City.
3
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of
such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge
the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the
collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary
Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The
Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so
occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time
ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One
Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is
allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner
provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CARL A. EASON and KATHERINE F.
RIPBERGER, the said Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed by hislher/their
signature. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in
its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its
City Clerk.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
4
.-".--
\
.J
'iff!w~.f. 4~
K enne F. Ripberger
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
, 200_, by
DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER.
, CITY MANAGER! AUTHORIZED
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
, 200_, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF \///'.5'/;7/ Cv
5
CITY/COUNTY OF~, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I ~ day of
Cjt1{\\..>l1f~, 200le, by Carl A. Eason.
\~.D~
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: J. 31 . CJ6
STATEOF VIRGINIA ~
CITY/CO' 'N 1 Y oF\:;::;\- u...... ,to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this \ ~~ay of
<:::5 ttf\\.ACVl
\..
,200Ja.., by Katherine F. Ripberger.
\~'D~k
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: ). 3} . ~<J
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY AND FORM
?fnne C. ~/)t lib
SIGNATURE
PliJ R If..f EtJt;tp
DEPARTMENT
G:\USERS\SHARED\WP80\RE\Real Estate Forms\WORD DOCS\ENCROACHMENTS\ENCROACHMENT.AGREEMENT.doc
6
--EB82
F100D-
EXHIBIT "A"
Oft ZEJ?O
PROPOSED
16' x 16' DECK WITH
18' x 18' ROOF
-
-
--
--
CITY CHANNEL AS -7
RECORDED PER CITY
MAPPING AND SURVEYS
I
-_ I
--- 17'2' ...-:, --,
--- - --- - ::.:t=7 : '",,.'
. '-..JQtP EMP EMP: /'
I '. Pi? OPd>rb . ',.....
73,2' 8' X 16' PIER EXT.'.' .
18.0' ROOF
16.0' DECK
_____ ~I E
-- 0'
.".
EMP
j?,mf/"J -
EO.<rT /-ir-r EMP: EXIST. MOORING PilE
CORNER ~lE ~
OF PATEL PIER f1.LLLL1J
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1" = 40'
o.
0..,
~~
-~
-
l&J
io
!O
~
p
.0
ClO
VI
N=3469319.75
E=12222277.07 DH(F)
REV: 06/20/05
WA TERFRONT
CONSUL TING, INC
1112 JENSEN DRIVE, STE. 206
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451
PHONE: (757) 425-8244
FAX: (757) 313-9788
(M.B.
~~ ..~ ..u..
-"'~ .... ~1..'''..1 \
...~. ~
.~ .. \
....... ..a'l.. ~ .
.""", ..- A- \
"uL ..)II.. .JI&.
...... .... ......
U
-.J
-.J
~
1i1
a
: 1.U ;;;
I a: C'l
:~'?
I <(g:
: Z I
I G~
a:~
S;C'l
..,
"
It)
(iJ
E't,$/lnttf-
/21/ ;z.'#/
:z
co
N
cl
~
ui
en
- :
~
to
:e.:=
UI.
-
UI
~
o
o.
(")
AJ
o
)>
~
Z
:::0
o
)>
o
.... .,
~ ..... ~
..... ~ ...
..
". ~
. - ---
N=3469'27I,!tt.... I
E=122f'25;"lr71...-
.... ...... .IlL 1
... ...... ..... .
~.
:z
EX. RESIDENCE
2-S-FRM
(FOOTPRINT NOT
SHOWN TO SCALE)
I 528
GPIN
2426-29-3244
LOT 15
DH(F)
N 9.55'05" E 100.00'
KERRY LANE (30')
.....-....
(Xl
o
......:;
N=3469221.24
E=12222259.85
PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT
SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR
CARL A. EASON and KA THERINE F. RIPBERGER
LOT 15, SCHOONER QUAY AT CROATAN
BEACH DISTRCT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
160 PG. 18) DA TE: MARCH 22, 2005 1 OF 2
lB'
SHINGLES OVER HEAVY
FEL T PAPER OVER 112"
MARINE PL YWOOD OVER
2xB RAFTERS AT 16ft OIC
SHINGLES TO MA TCH
EXISTING HOUSE
-Ii
Co
L:Jco
12
(2) 2x8 BAND THRU
BOL TED TO PILES WI
5IB"~ HARDWARE
NOTE: HURRICANE CLIP
RAFTERS TO BAND
Co Co
HALF WALLS - MA TERIAL A
OWNERS DISCRETION
ML W 0.0
{ BOT~-U
Ii' III' 'II III fl'l II I ~I III II , II , , I 'II '" I I ,
' I' "I III III, II I ~I 1,1 II I I, , , I III III , I I
II II' " "I, II I ~I ',1 '" I II I I I I" III I , II
I: ,I , II 'I 11'1 II I ~1 I " III' " , I , 'II III I II "
~ 'I III 11 III, 01 : ~: ~ 01 III I 110 I "I 1'1 I I,
'0 I I' " , 'I "'1 01 ~ d: ". I 111 I '. III , II II
, ,,, "
II I II 1 101 01 '111 III I I II I 'I III I II "
II I 'I ; I III II', 01 ~, ~ 'II '" " I I' I : I III I II
II IIII I I III II" 01 II, ~ III I JI I 'I , " III I 'I I
II II I . ,'I I, . d I " I ~I ! IIJ III I II 11) , III 1 " , COMPOSJTE DECKING EL: 6.0'
-,..----------
I j----------
, ,
. DBL. 2x8 PILE' cAPS EA. BENT
THRU-BOL T WITH 3/4"
HARDWARE
MHW 3.0
10" BUTT x 30' PILES
PILES DRIVEN TO
14' PENETRATION
AlA 1E'RIAl SPECS:
PILING: CCA 2.5 pcr
FRAMING: CCA 0.8 PCF
AlL nMSER ABOVE OE:CK LEva ceA 0.4 PCF
All HAROWARE Ii.D. GALVANIZED
@ 2004 WATERFRONT CONSULTING, INC, All RIGHTS RESERVED.
8'
WA TERFRONT
CONSUL TlNG, INC
1112 JENSEN DRIVE. STE. 206
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451
PHONE: (757) 425-8244
FAX: (757) 313-9788
PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT
SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR
CARL A. EASON and KATHERINE F. R/PBERGER
LOT 15, SCHOONER QUAY AT CROA TAN
BEACH DISTRCT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
(M.s. 160 PG. 18) DATE: JULY 12, 2004 2 OF 2
J::
~
\.
~
~
~
!;J
\
~
'\:
~
"
'"
\,
~
;:s
.\1)
, I
r>
~
r.....
1...
'<l
,
~ "
\....
~i,
~
\)
'-.:.
"
~
v
1----
\.
~
}
\.....
~
LOCATION MAP
ENCROACHMENT REQUEST
FOR ROBERT J. QUINN JR., AND CAROL R. QUINN
2404 ENTRADA DRIVE
^' GPIN 2424-12-0454
/
o 100 200 400
I ,Feet
Prepared by P.W./Eng./Eng. Support Services Bureau 3/7/06 X:\Projects\ARC Files\Agenda Maps\Entrada Dr\Entrada Dr.mxd
r:~~*:~~"
,{~~Jo~re;,
;:f~~~1;::'~:: ::<:",,-,~.':.r~'f
~'E! ..., ,,~~}
~~~~L .ll}
'1::"'/.10. , ....~J
.~~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM:
Request for Temporary Encroachments into a portion of City property
which is a man-made canal located at the rear of 2404 Entrada Drive in
Lagomar, from the property owners, Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R.
Quinn.
MEETING DATE:
June 13, 2006
. Background:
Robert J. Quinn Jr. and Carol R. Quinn have requested permission to maintain
an existing dock and to construct and maintain a proposed bulkhead and
proposed boat lift into a portion of City Property which is a man-made canal
located at the rear of 2404 Entrada Drive in Lagomar.
. Considerations:
City staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended
approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the Agreement.
There are similar encroachments in the canal at Lagomar, which is where Robert
J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R. Quinn have requested to encroach.
. Public Information:
Advertisement of City Council Agenda
. Alternatives:
Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add
conditions as desired by Council.
. Recommendations:
Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
. Attachments:
Ordinance, Agreement, Plat, Location Map and Pictures.
Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance. ~.
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/~ EstateW)7" I
City Manager: t, Ol) oOl .
I\\]
1 Requested by Department of Public Works
2
3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORI ZE
4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO
5 A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY
6 (MAN-MADE CANAL) LOCATED AT
7 THE REAR OF 2404 ENTRADA
8 DRIVE IN LAGOMAR BY ROBERT
9 J.QUINN, Jr. AND CAROL R.
10 QUINN, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS
11 AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE
12
13 WHEREAS, Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R.Quinn desire to
14 maintain an existing dock and to construct and maintain a
15 proposed bulkhead and proposed boat lift wi thin a portion of
16 the City property which is a man-made canal located at the rear
17 of 2404 Entrada Drive in Lagomar.
18
WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to S?S? 15.2-
19 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to
20 authorize temporary encroachments upon the City'S property
21 subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe.
22 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
23 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
24 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof
25 contained in ~~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950,
26 as amended, Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R. Quinn, their
27 heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to
28 maintain a temporary encroachment for an existing dock and to
29 construct and maintain a proposed bulkhead and proposed boat
30 lift in the City property which is a man-made canal located at
31 the rear of 2404 Entrada Drive in Lagomar as shown on the map
32
marked Exhibit A and entitled:
"PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS FOR
33 BULKHEAD, DOCK & BOAT LIFT FOR ROBERT J. QUINN, JR. & Carol R.
34 QUINN", a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public
35 Works and to which reference lS made for a more particular
36 description; and
37 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments
38 are expressly subj ect to those terms, conditions and criteria
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach
and Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R. Quinn
(the "Agreement"),
which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his
authorized designee
Agreement; and
is hereby authorized to execute
the
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be In
effect until such time as Robert J. Quinn, Jr. and Carol R.
Quinn and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute
the Agreement.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, on the day of 2006.
CA-9868
PREPARED: 4/3/06
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
A\"-"
~1Jn:.> C. Ofr;wsDh. <tb
S NATURE
Pit) RFaI [Ji!CJi
DEPARTMENT
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
D FORM
X: I OlD I REAL ESTATEIEncroaChrnentslpw OrdinanceslCA9868 Quinn.doc
PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
EXEMPTED FROM RECORDA TION TAXES
UNDER SECTION 58.1-81 I(C) (4)
. rt, A L
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ;;Lf day of 'fr I , 2006, by and
between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor,
"City", and ROBERT J. QUINN, JR. and CAROL R. QUINN, husband and wife, THEIR
HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one.
WIT N E SSE T H:
That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of
land designated and described as "299", as shown on that certain plat entitled: "SUBDIVISION
OF LAGOMAR - SECTION TWO - AND PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH -- VIRGINIA
BEACH, VIRGINIA", which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the
City of Virginia Beach in Map Book 77, at page 14, and being further designated and described
as 2404 Entrada Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456-4222;
WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to maintain an existing dock and to
construct and maintain a proposed bulkhead and proposed boat lift, "Temporary Encroachment",
in the City of Virginia Beach;
WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is
necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of City Property, which is a man-made canal
located at the rear of2404 Entrada Drive in Lagomar "The Encroachment Area"; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary
Encroachment within The Encroachment Area.
GPIN 2424-12-0454
GPIN 2424-02-4573 (City Owned Canal)
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits
accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in
hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the
Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and
maintaining the Temporary Encroachment.
It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be
constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and
the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is
more particularly described as follows, to wit:
A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as
shown on that certain plat entitled: "PROPOSED
- ENCROACHMENTS FOR BULKHEAD, DOCK & BOAT LIFT
FOR ROBERT J. QUINN, JR. & CAROL R. QUINN", a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is
made for a more particular description.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment
herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30)
days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The
Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such
removal.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, :from and against all claims, damages, losses
and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an
action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall
be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of
2
any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor
to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the
Grantee.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain
the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit
from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The
Encroachment Area.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and
keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed
necessary by tp.e City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured
or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability
insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance
policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days
written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of
the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or
contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of
such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge
the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the
collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary
Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The
Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so
3
,:'"'1 'r
occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time
ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One
Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is
allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner
provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Robert J. Quinn, Jr., and Carol R. Quinn, the
said Grantee, has caused this Agreement to be executed by their signature. Further, that the City
of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its
City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
By
City Manager/Authorized
Designee of the City Manager
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
City Clerk
~
{/off
4
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
, 2006, by
, CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED
DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
. 2006, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA
BEACH.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF VIRGINl1J" . .'
CITY/~I lUl)l 1 Y OF V~..l'\OO..- , to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
~
(;l:.J*ctay of
,2006, by Robert J. Quinn, Jr.
peA
~~~~
Notary Pu .. 1
My Commission EXPires~' . 4 ("\
\ , '. 3\ \ 2Al0~
,
[
5
STATE OF VIRGINI~ I' . .
CITY/CQlfNl:Y OF V~LlL , to-wit: .
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this dll~ay of
~~ , 2006, by Carol R. Quinn
~0-~
Notary u lic
My Commission Expires:
~3\,dtD~
APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFF IENCY AND fORM
/
~(; C. ~t()SIM.. ~
SIGNATURE
Pit) REd ElSktt
DEPARTMENT
<';:Il.SJ::RS\SHAR~D\ WP8U\RE\Real Estate Formsl WORD DOCS\ENCROACHMENTSIENCROACHMENT.AGREEMENT.doc
6
r----
L I EXISTING
'4i! WOOD DOCK
l I
~ :
~I
-FENCE II I
- Ii I
~r.11
~~I
'-ILrx-x
~I I
81 I
~I I
~I I
(/) I I
I I
I I
I I 'LOT ,
I I \ 299..1
127.98' TO W~-------=-___~
AlWOODTOWN RD S68.20'OO.E 125.00'
\
\
/
/
I
)
....--
---
--------..1
L MAN MADE
CANAL 7
ENCROACHMENT:
PROPOSED BULKHEAD
ENCROACHMENT 1S
4', ARCA=446 S.F.
ENCROACHMENT LINE
(ALIGNMENT: N6727'51"W)
ENCROACHMENT:
EXISTING DOCK
ENCROACHMENT
IS 17.5'
'LOT \
\ 298..1
-
1) JOHN NINAS
2400 ENTRADA DRIVE
VA BEACH, VA 23456
GPIN: 2424 12 1379
~1 INTICATES PHOTO
~ NO. & DIRECTION
f.: PROPERlY LINE ..
REVISED: 12/23/05
Exhibit A
I
(
\
\
"-- - -
'--- ------------
3) KAREN DRAGON
800 COSTA GRANDE DR. (LOT\
VA BEACH. VA 23456 -.JJ ./
GPIN: 2424 02 8246
CANAL OWNED BY CITY
OF VIRGINIA BEACH
ENCROACHMENT:
PROPOSED BOAT LIFT
ENCROACHMENT 1 S 20'
ENCROACHMENT
LINE
PROPOSED 123.5'
BULKHEAD
MHW ON lLio MLW
BANK
---
-EBB--")
L-FLOOD-
(/)
(/)
o
~
U
<(:..J
::E
~@
ADJACENT
BULKHEAD
'LOT \
\ 300..1
-
2) JOHN SMITH
2408 ENTRADA DRIVE
VA BEACH, VA 23456
GPIN: 2424 02 9459
- ENTRADA DRIVE (60' R/W)-
GRAPHIC SCALE
20' 0 20' 40'
SITE PLAN ~I-II-I~ I I
SCALE: 1"=40' 1 " = 40'
PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS FOR BULKHEAD, DOCK & BOAT LIFT
FOR ROBERT J. QUINN, JR. & CAROL R. QUINN
MLW=O.O'
PROJECT LOCATION:
2404 ENTRADA DRIVE
VA BEACH, VA 23456
DATE: 11/28//05
SHEET 1 OF 2
~
~
~ -
~:- l.T
-~-
:\ .-
f..- ) ,
<;) <;t
. 1 ~ ?
~ Q -0 ~
~ ~ '"
VI:) v
-~
, 4
.... ~ 4J
()
.-C. !", .Z}i 4
.-.( Q
\:J? J- j-
d i)J ~
<;y --0 ::r 'U 0
~ ..J
2. ~ ~ -:,
c., L, rb
L-+- 2 I l
Q ~ ~ ~
v + r' -J.- 'T
-u ll.! -+ +
+- x I X {...
~ ~ ~
X t ;).
0
~ ~ ~
<. r +- 0 c.+ ~
'1> (". 'J <...
Y- o "- ~
--=-
0
-0 J J J'
~ ~ )' E
QJ f .,
."
\) .L -< -'
" v Q.. Cb q..
~ "3 c..r
0
....0 0 M
--.....: rb
'?
~
'i
o
\.J
~
....,
::J-
M
ro
'-0{
-.)
.;:;
~
~
:::>
-
L
a.
\)
-0
1
~
::::r
~
::r-
--6
~
'0
.............
~
--
{'Y')
1
'2.
j
o
r>
'-
~
J
~
'~
:r
f"l
~
'i
~
"Y
<::::)
\S'
$.
('
::::,
"
<....
<;2
:y-
o
T
o
~
~
\l ~
1 0
~ 'Q
-rJ '- '-7
~ \)
III V .L
.l. V
+ ~
~ q-
y.. ()
4- \)
~ ~
IV ~ :J
1 J
Q., 1.. ~
J ;;). ..,
- i'\
0
~ ~
~ ~ -
:) <.. e..;
l() \) 'V
....(
r
.:::r- \~ ...3
..,~~:>
.J.L
IJ ~
1 ~
~ '/.
- - rJ,.
j :r- "'l
e ~ >( '1:!
"
'lI
v') ~ ~ -<
........... ! """0 t. 2 ':L
J:, ~ ~
... ~ \1 )
.~ 4 .-e::. -- ~
\J ~ -6
?i ~
Q " J
3 0 0
QI j "d 3
J:l ...j..... f-
:) \3' ~
~
~
M
r\
q"
~ ~ .['-
\) ...,
L
~ ~ ..3
~~
(0
M
-J +
co.q:
~
J
~
<:::2
\!
:>
~
-
V'
L
--..
:J
.....
L
Q
I.S
-0
i
lLJ.
CB
:f-
j
"-.l
~
~ < V)
,,)
v '"a .~--c
i ~ v ~
\i L ~-<
~;C5 ~~
'0 ~_
, '::::..:)
~1 ~
. VI q I
1.1 V '\).'\-
o \J
~ rl
5 x
,~
1\
'1
:S
:::J- 00
Q Ii::)
i)()\>o
~ ~
d
~ -
~
-0
If)
~
~
(!,I
f
-+- -+ .;:;
~ \t VJ
o
.J:::
@)
~
~ L
~ -
-- ~ tr
,:} J ) 1
G .t t ~
" l.
-d \)
<:.} -- <;)
-. ~ \)
t " +- '" --d
i - G . ,
,\) ~ E 1.
V ~ +- -~ ~
';) x
t- <.. - ~ ~ c..\- l\J ~
:l\ 4- --e) -0 ~ <. ~ ~
,.,', . ~ <. ~ ~ ~---o
~ ~ i ~J
V) !::.. ~ '>')
~ I.')'"" -::d.. \jCS 3
"? :;r-- ~ ~)
s :? - ~
M -J... ~ j j. :) l.rl
..y
~ ~ J V)
~ .L
:) 1. ~ VI V1 ~ L \.b
- \) ~ ;J \) '0
~ ~ G -0 J ..c J
'J ~ V - L ~{
J V ~
~ t ~ :i if
Q Do +-
;y I.. .... X.
.~ - a '0 <. .C: r:,;
V\ :J ~ Do 1.>0
Xl v lL <
J
~ 'V "-
- -0' c-i
\l () - -
L -
.......
-
~
"-
L
a
~
1
'2
~
"r
()
:3'"'
rb
@
@
j
\j
~ ~
~g
'"
t~
~+:-
'-0 ~ ~
~ <..
'-0 'i)
~ _.~
(}. ~ (IJ
..:!. J
...
::L ~
V 9-
">-
...........
'~
~
~
--
..)'
~
N
:s
~ ~ ~
... ~
~l~
.--.
"
~
'"
~
~
~
-1
{
(
-
~
.....
c...
Q.
~
~
ft
)-
;;)
J
~
--
C8
i2\
\d
\'
-~
I~
l"-
~ ~; l'
c;-~
t ~ ~
~ '''-; .~
~ ~
-0 'II? \\)
~V-:
'-CJ "I
~ - \i
~ ~ L
~ 1 ~
'\;
~ 2l()
~ - <:l
~~
~ '. ~
:s- \... 1.1)
I
-+
--"
~
~
..J-- ,~
\. v
t ~
')."".E
~
\:;)
,
L
s:2
~
{
~
-0
'\,
'-d
J
~
-c::..
::L.
\;;
l
+- C
4
~~~
.-Q
I \l
1.1 '~ ') ~
~ <.... \S
" v? ~ ::-
~ ~
i\ t,
~ -j ..}-
1:- ~
I V VI C ~ cJ I",
~ ,:; ~ Q
\) ~
e) "' -{- c 111 ,-
'oJ
llo v, ()
;:J L -r ~
t\ v-, ~ ~ ~ <.. ti
~ 0:, -() '... L G' ~
'l, ( ~ ,..... ~
...", <- \3\5 ,S) '-
-0 + '"
-+ Q \J v'\
:') l -i
4.1 .-' ~
\J "
..L :> v ~ '"1 u.- <0)
v (?) -J - \.., VI ';)
3 ~ --e) '0 .:[ -
~ () " \
rd -;).1 V 'J
~ ~ '--v .-I ~ V)\..j'0
- vi'" .....1\-0 3 '~
~ J 0 t ~ d ) ~ ~c::. ~
'" Q;
J ~ - .J
~ .c "o;;~~ - ~ N
~ 'Ii -- :) f
v u ~ y .),
-
- v u +-- --- ~
c...r ...:::) - ./) < ~ j '\)
,)0
q- -() ~ 2 ,.P ..D
\) ~ v
, <-
~
-
-
.::)
'-
))
,
"
,t~:~1t;
i:s-~.~~,...,,~<>.,.h~
~~4f;:::I:::'j:::B;;\~~.
,~~' '-' ',' ...... ..............~'
~?Jlt~~q!/
.......~..,,I
\..
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
~
ITEM:
An Ordinance to Revise Categorical Appropriations for the School Operating
Fund and Amend the City's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget and FY 2006-07
Capital Improvement Budget as Requested by the School Board
MEETING DATE:
June 13, 2006
. Background: The FY 2006-07 Operating Budget adopted by City Council on May 9,
2006 required Schools to reduce the School Board's previously":approved budget by
$7,116,408. ,'In order to make this reduction, the School Board has requested adjustments to
Council's categorical appropriations for Schools, as well as adjustments of funds between the
Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program, and a reduction in estimated revenues of
special revenue funds.
. Considerations: The School Board requests City Council approval of the following
changes:
Appropriation School Budget School Budget Difference
Category Adopted May 9, Recommended May
2006 by City 23, 2006 by School
Council Board
Instruction $538,700,909 $530,110,311 -$8,590,598
Administration, 22,984,779 22,688,423 -296,356
Attendance and
Health
Pupil Transportation 33,553,556 32,574,425 - 979,131
Operations and 89,415,253 87,503,830 -1,911,423
Maintenance
TOTAL -11,777,508
REDUCTION:
In addition to reducing the School budget by $7,116,408, the School Board has requested
Council approval of an additional reduction of $4,661,100 in the Schools Operating Budget, for a
total reduction of $11,777,508, and a corresponding increase of $4,661,100 to the Schools
Capital Improvement Program for acquisition of new equipment, maintenance and repair of
existing equipment, replacement equipment, and general maintenance and repair as shown
below:
. $1,736,046 to Capital Project #1-195, Student Data Management System
. $2,925,054 to Capital Project #1-211 , School Operating Budget Support
On May 23, 2006 and June 6, 2006, the School Board adopted budget resolutions revising the
categorical expenditure appropriations to reflect these requests. The School Board also revised
its estimated revenues in several School special revenue funds. The revised estimates result in
a total decreased appropriation of $643,642 to the School special revenue funds.
· Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council
agenda process.
· Recommendations: It is recommended that the City Council amend the Fiscal Year
2006-07 Operating Budget and Fiscal Year 2006-07 Capital Improvement Budget to reflect the
requested modifications.
· Attachments: School Board Budget Resolution dated May 23, 2006
SGhool Board CIP Resolution dated May 23, 2006
School Board Budget Resolution dated June 6, 2006
Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: School Board Resolutions
CltyManage~s K . ~~
1 AN ORDINANCE TO REVISE CATEGORICAL
2 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL OPERATING
3 FUND AND AMEND THE CITY'S FY 2006-07
4 OPERATING BUDGET AND FY 2006-07 CAPITAL
5 IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AS REQUESTED BY THE
6 SCHOOL BOARD
7
8
9 WHEREAS, the City's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget adopted by
10 City council on May 9, 2006, required the Schools to reduce the
11 Schools Operating Budget by $7,116,408; and
12 WHEREAS, the School Board desires to decrease the School
13 Operating Budget by an additional $4,661,100 and increase the
14 School Capital Improvement Program by $4,661,100 for student
15 data management and the maintenance, replacement, and
16 acquisition of equipment; and
17 WHEREAS, the School Board adjusted downward by $643,642
18 its estimated revenue for Schools' special Revenue funds; and
19 WHEREAS, the School Board approved resolutions on May 23,
20 2006 and June 6, 2006 to revise the categorical appropriations
21 in the School Operating Budget, transfer operating funds to the
22 Capital Improvement Program, and to reduce the estimated
23 revenues in the Schools' special revenue funds;
24
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
26 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
27
28
29 1. That the FY 2006-07 School Operating Budget is hereby
30 amended as follows:
31 (a) appropriations to the Instruction category are
32 decreased by $8,590,598, resulting in a total appropriation of
33 $530,110,311;
34 (b) appropriations to the Administration, Attendance
35 and Health category are decreased by $296,356, resulting in a
36 total appropriation of $22,688,423;
37 (c) appropriations to the Pupil Transportation
38 category are decreased by $979,131, resulting in a total
39 appropriation of $32,574,425; and
40 (d) appropriations to the Operations and Maintenance
41 category are decreased by $1,911,423, resulting in a total
42 appropriation of $87,503,830.
43 2. That appropriations to Capital Project #1-195, Student
44 Data Management, are increased by $1,736,046, and revenue from
45 the General Fund is increased accordingly.
46 4. That appropriations to Capital Project #1-211, School
47 Operating Budget Support, are increased by $2,925,054, and
48 revenue from the General Fund is increased accordingly.
49 5. That appropriations to certain School Special Revenue
50 Funds are hereby amended in the FY 2006-07 School Budget as
51 follows, with local revenue decreased accordingly:
52 (a) appropriations to the School Communication Tower
53 Fund are increased by $60,000, resulting in a total
54 appropriation of $460,000;
55
(b) appropriations to the School Athletic Fund are
56 increased by $179,500, resulting in a total appropriation of
57 $4,678,989; and
58 (c) appropriations to the School Cafeteria Fund are
59 reduced by $883,142, resulting ~n a total appropriation of
60 $24,528,369.
61 Adopted by the Council of the city of Virginia Beach,
62 Virginia, on the
day of
, 2006.
63 Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of
64 city Council.
Approved As to Content:
Approved As To Legal
Sufficiency:
\ hJJ)f i E ~. o~~
City Attorney's 0 ice
CA10049
X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\School Board Resolutions ORD
R-4
June 8, 2006
SCHOOL BOARD
Daniel D. Edwards
Chairman
District 1 . Centervllle
1513 Beachview Drive
VA Beach, VA 23464
495.3551 (h). 717.0259 (cell)
Sandra Smith-Jones
Vice Chairman
District 2 - Kempsville
705 Rock Creek Court
VA Beach, VA 23462
490-8167 (h)
Rita Sweet Bellitto
At. Large
p 0 80x 6448
VA Beach. VA 23456
418-0960 (h)
Jane S. 8rooks
District 6 . Beach
721 Hilltop Road
VA Beach, VA 23454
425- 1597 (h)
Emma L. "Em" Davis
District 5 - Lynnhaven
1 125 Michaelwood Drive
VA Beach. VA 23452
34Cl-8911 (h)
Edward F. Fissinger, Sr.
At- Large
412 Becton Place
VA Beach, VA 23452
486-4567 (h)
Dan R. Lowe
District 4 - Bayside
4617 Red Coat Road
VA Beach, VA 23455
490-3681 (h)
Michael W. Stewart
District 3 - Rose Hall
105 Brentwood Court
VA Beach, VA 23452
498-4303 (h) . 445-4637 (w)
Arthur T, Tate
At-Large
1709 Ladysmith Mews
VA Beach. VA 23455
46Cl-5451 (h)
Carolyn D, Weems
At-Large
1420 Claudia Drive
VA Beach. VA 23455
464-6674 (h)
Lois S. Williams, Ph.D.
District 7 - Princess Anne
2532 Las Corrales Court
VA Beach. VA 23456
816-6107 (cell). 961.3734 (w)
SUPERINTENDENT
Sheila S. Magula, Ed,D.
2512 George Mason Drive
VA Beach. VA 23456
263-1007
~IRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
BUDGET RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the mission of the Virginia Beach City Public Schools. in partnership with our entire
community, is to ensure that each student is empowered with the kno\\'ledge and skills necessary to
meet the challenges of the future; and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach has adopted a comprehensive
strategic plan and school improvement priorities to guide budgetary decisions; and
WHEREAS, the School Board has studied the recommended FY 2006/07 - 2007/08 Biennial
School Operating Budget in view of state and federal requirements, additional demands for space
and operations, the strategic plan, priorities, expectations, competitive compensation for employees
and the best educational interests of its students; and
WHEREAS, the total funds available for FY 2006/07 from the City of Virginia Beach to Virginia
Beach City Public Schools under the Revenue Sharing Policy is 5365.105,021; and
WHEREAS, the debt service payment is estimated to be $40,282,967 leaving a balance of
$324,822,054 to allocate between the Operating Budget and the Capital Improvement Program.
..Now, therefore, be it
RESOL YED: That the 5324,822,054 be allocated as follows: $307.224,646 to the Operating
Budget, and 517,597,408 to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP): and be it further
RESOL YED: that the Virginia Beach City School Board requests a categorical appropriation of
S672,876,989 for FY 2006/07 from the City Council of Virginia Beach for the FY 2006/07 _
2007/08 Biennial School Operating Budget, as outlined by category:
Instruction
Administration, Attendance and Health
Pupil Transportation
Operations and Maintenance
and be it further
RESOL YED: That the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach requests an appropriation of
$101,067,314 for special grants, and other special revenue funds, for the 2006-2007 fiscal year; and
be it further
$530,110,311
22,688,423
32,574,425
87,503,830
RESOL YED: That a copy of this resolution be spread across the official minutes of this Board,
and the Clerk of the Board is directed to deliver a copy of this resolution to the Mayor, each
member of City Council, the City Manager, and the City Clerk.
Adopted by the School Bard this 6th day of June, 2006
SEAL
Attest: \
~,f aJ.vJ~
Dianne P. Alexander, Clerkiofthe Board
School Administration Building . 2512 George Mason Drive . P.O. Box 6038 . Virginia Beach, VA 23456-0038
www.vbschools.com
.. IRGINIA 8EACH" CITY puauc SCHOOLS
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
.. ..
-. ,..
.. _ Aibt,M,C~<' . y': <'1tl:t'~~~':~'::':~~b~;.t'::":'.:.:,,:(
Clem, SChool Board. Of:.ffii..:.,....... .."
6ltv.: of'. :... . '. ...., .:< ::'. "',.:~~~~::?::'.>:i.};:.:.:...:~: ",.":,,,:,.:.,
SdlQQl Adtni;\istritiM8ilildir,g .i15il Ge<irge"MasooOfMl.P.Q. SO)( 603S' VlI'gii\iaBe-aci:l.YA234:S64)O~a .. . .'~
s.c. H.'QOLBOARO
. ..." ... ,.
1);ut!e111.EdQds
Cllairm/lll ... .
. Oisll!:ll, Cen~~
1Stl~Cr~
VABeacIl; 'vA ~
49>$5';ll!.;. 71 i.o,.':s!ll;;dl)
SaiI!f"silal!l-Joita
'llceCiilli'mIIl
'l:lislriQ'~ :._~~
'ro5'~_.OJI:rt
y;,,~'ljA.~'
~15rlhl " .. .
.atta.S'wIIl: ~.
Ai-lil'gt . .
.?Q.:So;i644$ .
.V"'~;V.A.~~...
41~(li1.
.lilllt). 8mGliS'
QI;;lrict:\i; ~~
1t. BlIllOp~"
. VA.~; v~. ~3&'l
G1~{ll1
1mma t. ~Da<Rs
. iiisiiltln:yMt.;mtl
112S,~.~
V^~\'Pi~:1 .
~91Ijl:l} .".
~~,~~,Sr:.
A}~. .
.4-12 ~./>iace:
\'J.. Bai:l', vA 234$<i'
~(b}..
tl&nll,.l._
llistfJd ~.~ aay.s~. '
, Mil7R8c1 Clla!~1ld
vAlleaCt. VII 234S5:.
~l!fl)
.MlcbeeiYi.~
D6l:'ci3~ ~.~.a!I.
iG5Bret:lY.'lial Ctll!t.
.v~ SG:li.VA. '234$t .
~{i<}:.~63r{W!
.. ." -. . . .
~1lI''f.;;.
#'~ ...
l:ros:.,aCy$!1l.i!h~
VA 8e$tl.'VA~55
~M$l{l1i
CarolPO. Wftirls
At.~. ...
;4t.)qllIlidia[.,"~
VA.&W'; vAiJi,.;.s.
4suisr4(l\j,
~;$;.~.J>b;n..
l)i5lful.l.-.P:~ MIl!:
~J2L.aa,Q:.~ ~:
vt. ~~VAt,,4~
6j6Jj'Ol~}.. ge~'Sl~!w\
SUPERlNiENSEtIT
SlleIIl $..~>Ils..Ed,1>.
:l5~t ~~Ori;,~
W..BeaCICV,U3456
m~OO1
611DGET Rti;SOLUTION
1
~
~
l
~
WlIEREAS~ thc.mis$i~n of the YirginiaJ3eacll City p~blic Schools,inpartncrshipwithQurentire
ccm'imuuity;ist6 (..~s:urethat. eaCh st'.:identisenip.o~'ered. \\.'1th. Llteknowledge 3:wI ski HS1'lecessary to
mc# the <:MHengesof the. future; and.
WlreRE'AS~ the Sch<lQl Board 9ft4~ City of Virginia 13eachhasadoptcda coniprehcosive
strategic pl~nandsc.hQol improvelllenlPI"iQritles to guide budgetW'Ydeci$iol1s; c.nd
W:a:ERJ;AS~*.eSqh()o1 J3.~U'dhasstu(l~.therec()nun~mdedFY 2oo6/07....20fi1!081liernliui
School. Opt.~tmgBudget in: vieW'Qf $ta~.~ fe~imilrequirem~~~additional :4ennmd;;:fQr :;pace
mid operanons, thestraitegic.plan..priooties. :c.xpcctatiQI:JS, cqropeti~iv:e. compensatlontbr. cmploY<<$
and the :pest cduCati01mllnt~ests()fits:studellt5; and .
"'HEREAS,-thetotaJfund~ avaitabiefor FY20061(J1.ft.Q2:!1:the City of Virginia Beach to Virginia
new;ll Citylmb1ic.~clioolsUIiderfutRev-enoeSh~ringPolicyis$3(j5.105.021;a'nd.
WfJEREAS,th~ .deQtservic.~.p<1-Y!mi'tit.iseStimated' woo s40,282.9671eavingabalattceof
$314~842,O~4 to. a.llocate. betw~n the(.>pe11l.tingE1l9get?ri4tneC'..apltillfInpmvemthtPrograIIl.
N~w~ thc~fote.. beh:
RESQINED: Thntthe. $324;.822.054 be aHocatedasfull()ws: .$3o.7~224.646to the ()petating
Budget, and $ 17,59704(18 to tb~ CiipitS;l. Improvement Program (CIf');. ano'beitfUrther .
RESQLVED~ that ti"ic Virginia Beacb CiwSchoolBQard.r~ucstsa categorical appropriation of
'$672.fn~,989 .1~'FY '2QO.6/u1fwm theCitYCouncil.(}fVirgin.ir. .aeach for the FY.2006lO7....,
. 2007f08.Biennial Sc.hoolOpenatin~B:l.ldg~~. ~sowlipedby category:
$$:30.p9,783
'22" 6gg ~~"..
.", to.::: .~~:;t.,?
:32,S04i9S~
87,503.830
lnStroctioll
.A...dm1fiistraoon. Attendance and'HeiiHl.
Pupil Transportation.
()perati,on~andMaitite03rtce
.mdbe it further
lU~SOl;VED: That the School.13QaHj. Qfthe,City:ofVirgjriia' BC'd.chrequestsan .appropriatkm 9f:
SlOl,06 7,314 for special grantS, . and ofherspeCiulteveI;ue fundSjfj)rthe. 2(1){).:2M7' fisc,d y(,.-a~ all<i
ix?<itJwti1er . . .
~: .
I
. RESOINEI): 1'hatacl.1py :of this tesQ11ltionoo ~1>teadacro$$th<:: oftidal minutesC?fthis J~ourq~
tuld the Clerk,Qf :tbeBolU'<i .l~. d,irected to deliver a 'Copy of thi s res61uli6h. to the Mayor. each
. ID<'1tiber ofCityCounciLtb<:Oiy ~tan~g:er:.AAd tb~(lityCltr:1<,; .
SIiA t
Attest:
~;.t:w~
D-hmntP;. Alexander, Clerkoft.'I1c Board
CERTtFIEOTOBEA TRUE;
ANOCORRECTOOPV.
SCHQOLBOARD
0IDl4l! 11:edwa1c/s
~_h
~ici1;~ie~~~
::Stj~~
'I" ~ vA ~31Si! .
495'35S1{!l}_ W-ll259l~~1
Sanlti'il $n1ltll~~.
V~tltli.
~~.
VA.~:\lA 23462-
.4Si"A161Jltl
~$Wtet. $+1lilIl
,~
1".0; SllX:64'!8'
.',{A~.VA l:l4Sli
.~;~~(k;'
. Jaa.S.i!tooks
~5.&iich
nHtillCp ~
VA 5cacIt.. VA 2J4&l .
~1im(3)
ElMiIl: "Szi"llalds'
~5.l~
~lQ.~~~.
ll<\~v" 2J.45~
~11{rl'
~Ai'd:F.I'i_.g!ll';'St,
AI'~
M:e Sectoi!.eIac>;
YA ~YA~52
'~;ll}
D1R'~ l.pm
~4,~li)~.
M!1.Reil COal Road
VA BeaCII. VA a45~.
~f{~}
__W.StMjt.
~:F~!ia;;
:~~l
*4~t~}.4...~ Iv.;
~l':.T#iI
AI~.
tt:lS~II1J..~
\/ASeacIi: i{A. 2"~<5.
,w~;(h)
~~.WUm$
~.l.. .. .
'i4~ C!;lud;ailii\!e
l1A~,W,.~5
<IM'66?4!tt
1:DisS<V(itlallls, Pllil>c
O!$iric! t .; Pr.~ Aml;
:!532l.ZCCl!aes 0:lu.1
VASe:icli, 'If< .23451).
81$;61!l1(eflifl.~~,!:~(w~
SUPERINTENDENT
SMcl4iS:....W..
:<512 ~.~. Oti'te
'iA 5eacll. VA::7J.il56
~l:O:J7 ..
+UtG'~NtA BI:ACH CITYPUSU5= SCHOOLS
A H E A D OF THEe U R V E
CI?RESOLUTION.
Wf;E~e:A$,..the mSSlon of the Virginia Beach CltYPl1biiCS<:hOOiS. in partnership WlthO,l. entire comrn<mity, is tp
. ~nsure.lha~ e<:l~ studentjsell'lpowe~d wifrtthe kriOwlE'..dge and skills nei::essaiy 10 meet the cllaHenges of the future;
and
. \'VHER=A$.theSehOOl a~ hasadoplerl acomp.ehensivi~ strategic. plan and' school irnprovernent ptioriII$$lO
. sujpe'budget?..rydeqs~?n$: and
· WHERCAS,the.Stl1l:iOl B<<lfd. fla$Sludi<<ilhe~$(lf tneOper;lti!lg BUdget and the CapJtaII!r\j:lfoVSlfieht .Prog1"~m
in Ifgtrtof theavailabie (Undit~;atld.
WHEREAS, the. totaf fuoc!$avaifab!e tot FY :200&'0:7 .from.lt~ Cnyof Vjrg~~ia SeacntoVJtGiniaBeach City Public
SchoolS lilOder.theR~~i1t.ie Sharing Po(it.Yas aeop;~ on May '1.1. .2~by. t~ CiWCoUi1QHs :$365.105.021:ano
. WHEREAS; the May. .11;. 2q06.t:;ityb.udQelprovidati :a.d~i{iile_fiot~ fmm. tlleSaodbrldg~ TiF AmdoCl!anceof $~ .'I'ilikm.
QfwhiChS4,66.MoO:~. alio:cated to 1tie:ScflOOi'~rifby: appliCailQh of,the:R(!VW.u~fShl3ring Form!J/a; anb
WHlm~;theS~'Board hasdiscretiClr.ov:et'the allor~ti~clfheRlWe~l~ $haririgF'QnJjuiafunds'l'leioHhe
. debt $:ervi~.m.d discretion over t~. useoft'1e.$4;~' Mtrom lr.t! fOndba~flce; .and
WHEREAS~the $4,651 ~100. is avail9bletb fuMitEirnsrem<l'V'OO from the Marc!l7; 20000pe.>atingB\Joget to balance
fume (lVailable lPl'1ding;:ar.cl
WHEREAs. the SchooIB~d; recognites the age t:md: cot.dlti<<; I.)f itsnjgt;. s~haols as a Slg:lilicat:t futiditi;Jeh.alleng~;
- . ~ thesafuEltilhemorribetS a~ack~g~th#t jnordeflo tlle~tt!'le CIPapj:)t(;lPf!;ated 1:>YG# O(l~i~tithc pi:Ol~i ...
.d~!g!:13l.e(! i3S~et~flf: High Si::hpOi,m~tbe:deferred; HoWever. lt1&SchQi:)lBoard also realizes tneJmpo~nce
.~r;thispfQJect"to!he Mure.O( Ihediyaootherefofe,femairiS eommiltedto.rea6i,!ce5s!lig:lhiS'i$suei;ithe ri$~ict CIP'
buOg~14~iopmentcycla, .
Iilow. therefore .be. it
RESOl.Vf3):. Th~ttf.e$ ~Gs,105;021.m. FV .Q6Io7 Rellentle Sharins. Ftlil(js.bea1/ocated aslollo11.'cS:
D~bt5eiv!ce$4C.282:,967
PAYCOCIP$ 17,597.40$
OperalingauogetS307224~646
and bfilit f.Jrther.
.RSSOI.Vep:. Tllatffle$ 4;6fH,tc-O.8pprOpriated tolheSchOOlsori May11~ .2006 bei.'seo torthefbnOWlr.g pur~;
.. $.1;736.046 to ClP1:'195$t~nl Dat.'l Managell'i&l'it ~Ystem
.. $1,014,715toClP'1:;211 ttl1v11drePi3(:eI'!iOOiofCCWiers
· $. 900,OOQto trPH11 ,to' fuOde.~pmerit repiacement;matntenancean<lrepai( fQt fOOdSeti/ices
eqlJip,'Il~n! .
.. .$ 5~Q;33~ 19QiP 1~2J1tqr General~intl;r.,ancea'1d'Repajr
· $ 300;0()'.rtOCI~1;.21 tie fu~reptaooment of RlsagfflPhs .. ...... . ... '. . .
.. $ ~ 20;000 toe!? '.21'1 to furydpl,'rchase and replacemenl of custodl~l eo,ufpmen~
ar:d' be if further
RSSOl. VEi:):.T!lahl cOPY. pflhis res6MiOllbe sPrea<l. across t!1e offjt;f<lll'llj1)IJtesi)f W,>l:3oard; tal)d Ule CI$i1\, of the
Boa~ tsdireeteo lbdeliver :acop)'of~isresoMion to th~ M~Y9r.. e~ch memt>er;>f CitYOcl.incitth~Cjty M"~rnlgef,
and !l1e City Clerk
. Adopted. bY th
SE,AL
Att~!: ... '. ..
~p~
. . '.
':" "... ".". " . ,". .' .... "." . '.
:~,"::.:',.: .,.:".:.:: :"', '.' .........~..: .r',
DiaoneP.Aiexaoder.CJp,1t cfnlC~ro
.. ... ATRUE.
-: ., .:", '",' :," ",".".. .....
ANDCORRECTCOPY.
Chit...
Sch<x>i Admil1notr'3.tiim B'lJildi~'Z -25 11 G~ MasoFlQrive - P.O, 66x6038 - Virginia ~>YA 234S~03a ""
6- 8-06; 1 1 : 43AM; Rea I Estate
Law Annex
;4274456
# 1/ 1
/
}
I ~ J/::L'r7-I,WI77/J:;?----r:?
r--- ~ II ~1W::J:n :-
~IYi unWA ~
hr~~ ~ I 1i/j
"f ~ / ~ /if{fflIJJrl~ ~
V ~:rtt r 1: --.,
~ ~U-- D--i
- ~~-~-= I~ ~
~~~ fI
I ~~~~ V
~ ~ u: ~:;~~/ ~
II~ \' ~~ ~
~ '/~~~'qji""~
~ =::1('~ ~
'I,~J.- ~
~~r--=:
. "<:: ~
#
;f,
. :I~~i}:;: .
::::::::::
I (
~ i
r!
.,
:>
-;
52
~
~
""
"0
I
I
VIRGINIA BEACH Bt VO,
~
..... .....
) \Cl:::D e--='
I I -f--
-
~I. ~f-- ~ r---l..
~//~~wffim 1 ~~
/' ~ [J' r----t==i H ' LOCATION MAP
~ ~ ~ ~THALlA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
d;; f-- GPIN 1477-96-3587 SOU7HfRNBLVQ,
f- ~ll ~ OPEN SPACE PROGRAM SITE \ I 1,-
e---- e--- ACQUISITION ~ I
f-t-__tr IIII~ 'III'~ SCALE: 1" = 400' I'IH III - E ~
,_IIR 11~11f- I 111\ IIlr Illr 1:=:: ~
I-
~
~
~
~R
r---::
"~
~
I--
IIrr
THBtlN CNllIJRCH.DGN M.J,S.
-----~._.._..~ -.----------
PREPARED BY PIN ENG. CADD DEPT. MiIIM:f-t 9~!l.DOO05
._-_._--_._--_....__....._._-_._._-~- ,.,. .--..-.----.--....--. .
4~~
k~~il~. ";~i'
1ft. ,'- \'i.)
<u:: : .....$)
\~,~~ "_ij}
~.~...o"':.
~y
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An ordinance to authorize the acquisition of real property located
behind 420 Thalia Road, from Constance Kistler Bradford, Cheryle
Lyne Mack and Vicki Cunningham Rader, Trustees of Thalia Trinity
Presbyterian Church.
MEETING DATE:
. Background:
In 1968 Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church leased the rear/east portion of the
church's property to the Department of Parks and Recreation of the City of
Virginia Beach to serve as a neighborhood park. The City has developed and
maintained park improvements at the property since that time. Parks and
Recreation estimates the value of the playground equipment and infrastructure at
the site to be approximately $48,000. Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church has
expressed an interest in selling 3.08382 acres of the rear portion of their property
to the City of Virginia Beach in order to preserve the site as a public park for the
Thalia neighborhood. The City has pursued the acquisition of the fee interest in
the property for Open Space, and has reached an agreement with the owners to
buy the property for $985,000.
The public will access the property from a 24-foot wide ingress/egress easement
from Thalia Road. City vehicles can also access the park by this easement, but
the public easement is intended to be for pedestrian access only by the public.
. Considerations: Purchase the property to preserve the current use of the
property as a neighborhood park.
. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda
. Alternatives: Do not adopt the Ordinance and do not acquire the property.
. Recommendations: Purchase the above property for $985,000 through Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) project 4-004 Open Space Program Site
Acquisition.
. Attachments: Ordinance and Location Map
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works
City Manager:~ t,~~
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORI ZE THE
2 ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
3 COMPRISING APPRIXIMATELY 3.08 ACRES
4 LOCATED BEHIND 420 THALIA ROAD,
5 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR
6 $985,000 FROM CONSTANCE KISTLER
7 BRADFORD, CHERYLE LYNE MACK AND
8 VICKI CUNNINGHAM RADER, TRUSTEES OF
9 THALIA TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
10
11
12
13 WHEREAS, CONSTANCE KISTLER BRADFORD, CHERYLE LYNE MACK AND
14 VICKI CUNNINGHAM RADER, TRUSTEES OF THALIA TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN
15 CHURCH ("Thalia Trinity") own a parcel of real estate comprising
16 approximately 3.08 acres located behind 420 Thalia Road, in the
17 City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "Property");
18 WHEREAS, Thalia Trinity desires to sell the Property to the
19 City of 'Zirginia Beach (the "City");
20 WHEREAS, the City has leased the Property from Thalia Trinity,
21 free of charge, since 1968 for the purposes of a neighborhood park;
22 WHEREAS, the City has developed and maintained park playground
23 equipment on the Property, and this site has been used as a public
24 park serving the surrounding Thalia neighborhoOd;
25 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
26 Virginia (the "City Council") is of the opinion that the
27 acquisition of the Property would further the City's open space
28 initiative and ensure continued use of this site as a public park;
29 WHEREAS, funding for this acquisition is available in the Open
30 Space Acquisition CIP account (CIP 4-004) .
31 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
32 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
33
1.
That the City Council authorizes the acquisition of the
34 Property by purchase pursuant to ~ 15.2-1800 of the Code of
35 Virginia (1950), as amended, which Property is shown on Exhibit A
36 attached hereto.
37
2 .
That the City Manager or his designee is further
38 authorized to execute all documents that may be necessary or
39 appropriate in connection with the purchase of the Property, so
40 long as such documents are substantially in accordance with the
41 Summary of Terms attached hereto as Exhibit B and acceptable to the
42 City Manager and the City Attorney.
43
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
44
Virginia, on the
day of
, 2006.
CA9998
X:IOIDIREAL ESTATElAcquisitiouslWORKING - DEEDSIOpcn Space ProjCClIRPS830 Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Churcblord.doc
R-1
June 7, 2006
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~~
Public Works/Real Estate
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
luJl1A ~
City Attorney's Office
z
nn~
N_;
~g~
~ . ~
~~~
~~~
"'toQ
fi~~
~~i
"''''~
"1"18
....z
-Ni
~g:~
~foC!~
VI
m
m
VI
::I:
m
m
--l
....
I
S?
Sl
~
I
!?
i
z
o
~~~;!
i.~! ;;
p 2
!I ~
j:lw~2
apa
Pl~~3
~h~
91' l:l ~
~=~~
~iifi:::
Cliil"'c
Uo~
~2='"
g ~~
~8j~
;'z '"
ln~ J
~fJd
~~2
~ "';!
,:a....
;' ~~
~~'"
is~
~S~
~ a
o
-n
N
-n
o
;::J
z
Q
m
VI
~
o
(j
m
~
:;;
?i
~
5
z
VI
!il Sl
~ 6
Ii 0
~ i"
~
.s ~
~ $
Ii
~. z
$ ~
i S
I ~
0
:S i
g~ II
!!!' ;;l
I g
.'" ~
~ g ~
~~ ~~i $ !
C/O s .~ - ~
~I'! zl::<
z......,. '0:1 (I)
~;H ~ ~ Q ~ ;
~SJ51,;~~ ~ ~
~ i~~ ~ S3 z C'l
"' Q!! CD >
i ~!1i 50 - z
!f (')
~ ~ E
[5 ~ ?l
8 ~ :r
" ~
,
-. -:-. -t.- _. ~!o~O' IF)
j S 112.4?,j;'-ir-
~
Cl ~
~ I
:!l ." ~
:r
n ~
en
~ 2
:I: '" !;;
2 ij ~
!il
..
:i!
>
-~
~ 0
"'ill
- '"
.. ....
~ ~
:.'"
t!~
,.
i
r---
EXHIBIT A
~srATE PlANE COOIlOI
SOlmlZONE NATE
~ *'9a3/9J(1WtNJ
h7-
THAl.1A R(W) 170' IlIW)
MB 41 pc; 56
N 00.28'20. 'II'
104.98' EF)
~
t"'_
0'"
:1
N 00.26'02" 'II'
398.23'
",!!il : 4.08'~ II
~! ; t i-
S! ;!1 m' :. io
. ,~ I · , : i :. ,
____.._ j" ..' f · ~, .:.' ·
!l __ , . ,,:~fl ~ e"; " :rn,_: ~~
~ ' 0. f ;;I CD ,CI:_' ":ol
6' .i . ~ ~ ^ i :3:: '!
:~ _~,'~ : .. !.,.~ ~~: :2j; E
_ :,.., ~~ .J::~:
; -.,: I': :ll '" ~ ~ ::E c n I I","
_I> . , , · Z ~ "0 " · I "c./1
---""to i ,,! ll' ;:"" · I:: : n ;; .!
I ~!I! ~ ~ '" :!l ~ $ i:' ,~'l::!
.i ' < I, ~ ~ '" f :; I!r;-:.: t"f--.i ~~
~!~' , ~ ~ il :;: H Ii i l<i ."
..: . ~ g 2 . IX :~:. ~
._.'[..no._."....;..,':...! :~ ~ ~ I' :$: 'S I S
, ~ , ." .. n ~ :" " ,! ~
. ~, ."':' ,~ ' k ' ,0
s ~ S ~ :: ~,:r; , : .Ie : . :,.' .~.?
," .. _ ' -'J I ,,'- c, 5>
0" ,,,. , , '1:"" z
'i:l' ; Sf i' .~ . ! . 0
'" _ L vi I IT' h 0 ,Ii< : . : ~
-.~.._..-.._.4-- I : ... ~ -'" : Is: !
! ,_~ ....._._ :0 :!:. '1
~~;:3! -"s-"-"-" 281.a., :;: Ii : i:i: ",:::,
., ., h',,.,,. -.-"'- · " : ,-: · '
. 0: > -.;<.-.. ~ : ! : 0 · ..
a :ll, ~ 39-'.-" I ~,':ll /'
_.. :. .:. .....""" ._...., : ,: / ,
_;._.._..~" g ", ":-H''/ ·
, .i' · ", "'. : :..: ,I
" ... ' ',' ....' -.
" ;;. " ~+-:., I
! .. ' "i ' '~-f.~ ..
, _,. _". ,co ..o..".._~
_"_. " <Ih ~ 1:; Q ::,. ___~:::~--.:=_---!-!7.J.... 51)
'_"_.. ..-l . -'" .. ::.1.: _...;;.;;"""
, I .~ g ~ ~ : :",,: ~.. ...-
z . ~ Cl '" ;: ~ > : :dJ.: Q
.. _ I . , "," 0" " '<1" ,
, , ...' , ~ 0'" ,.....: "
". _; o~ " Z ~ "0 ,00' ......-'
..' :.. . . ~.p "" ~ ~" Ii!: . !
,.', ":' ~ ;'l Pi ~,,~: : i i !
" ! . " '" S~.; i m: ~~......- .
'i · b ~ .' '" ".
, ~ e '" ~"~, : i: ".
I · ~ .;: ~ : "",., "
d . "0 '" · ....: '" 0
tl .~: :~:g. ,. c; ~
. ..' ..," 'l ..-
J I : :ii!., ~!
~ ' ." 'f ~,
&'0' PlJ8lJC op.....~ I ", - ..
'- -- ::j. ,
_ _ . .... ROroTHf EA5fMENrHEREey I I t.-':"
. 'ill:~----- """'__ i it:..
5.~".--.Ji_P2----;----- ' ,...,' "
. 130..~"3~!t ____ __ 1 : I?; ~
_ . __3O'UlWty,,~ lFl . _.,. .----____ I i ,lrl l\l 5i
--;'.;/"____~.:!_!'_._I'C. ~- "-_._..~:..------.---: ,!..::;; "';j
I , , _ _~' -.--il.~u;r ('---.. "',. 0::
'I,' 189.51'" _fl__ .', s ,-
~
"
"
z
~-
0'"
...::
w,
~
~
2~
..~
~
-l
::r
i",~
~a>
:~i
o
;;0
~
: Ii!
;126
,>I:
~o
!;l
~..
~QS
.:,w-
'1',,;>
~
~
g.
~,
~
--...-
.........
j
~a5
, ;:
"I:)
i
~
r-
~ ;,;
~~
i ~
I:l - .
~ ~
l" -l
~ 0
~ ~
Zl z
'" ::r
s 0
==
Ol
~
s;
- ;E ~
~~ ?J ~
..!'l v, CD
~ is - 0
: z C -
~ i ::; ~
~:;: 0 0
s ~ z
Z 0
a "Tl
==
m
'"
,"~P'"
~!,..tIt fj ~
g$aii~
~~~~2~
11I~!~i!
~ "'
I ? f t t
98S"8,"~
:!;~:Z~Z
;I ;t ~ a !:: 0
~~~~~
a ~
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF TERMS
Purchase
SELLER:
Constance Kistler Bradford, Cheryle Lyne Mack and Vickie
Cunningham Rader, Trustees of Thalia Trinity Presbyterian
Church
PURCHASER:
City of Virginia Beach
PROPERTY:
Approximately 6.11 acres located at 420 Thalia Road and identified
as GPIN 1477-96-3587
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF PROPERTY TO BE
ACQUIRED:
"PARCEL B, 134,331 SQ. FT., 3.08382 AC., GPIN 1477-96-5596" as
shown on that plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING SUBDMSION OF
THALIA TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (MB 138, PG
18), VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" dated February 24, 2006
SALES PRICE:
$985,000
CONDITIONS OF SALE:
. The Property shall be subdivided at the City's expense in order to create a new lot for
the public park site.
. The City will acquire the parcel described as 3.08382 acres, to be known as Parcel B,
and the church will retain the remaining 3.00000 acres, to be known as Parcel A.
. The City will be responsible for the cost of the title report and owner's policy.
. The City shall submit a subdivision plan for review and approval by the Planning
Department prior closing.
. A 15' public drainage easement will be dedicated to the City by subdivision plat.
. The City shall prepare the agreement and closing documents.
. The City's property (Parcel B) will be used for a public park site. The public park
hours will be from dawn to dusk.
. The City will be responsible, once the property is subdivided, for removing any park
equipment, grills and tables, etc. from the church property (Parcel A).
· The church will reserve a 20' utility easement for the benefit of Parcel A for an
existing sanitary sewer line.
· The church will dedicate a 24' public ingress/egress easement across Parcel A to be
used for pedestrian access and city maintenance vehicles to Parcel B. This easement
will be located within the drive aisle of the current parking lot and any future
redesign of the parking lot. Any redesign will be subject to review and approval by
the City of Virginia Beach, Department of Parks and Recreation, to ensure similar
reasonable access to the public park.
· The City will share equally in the cost of the maintenance and upkeep of the 24'
public ingress/egress easement crossing Parcel A once the church has completed the
redesign of its parking lot, subject to evaluation and sound engineering judgment,
subject to funding availability and subject to appropriation. The City will also share
equally the cost to cover the 24' public ingress/egress easement in sealant every ten
(10) years, subject to evaluation and sound engineering judgment, subject to funding
availability and subject to appropriation.
X:\OIDIREAL ESTATE\Acquisitions\WORKING - DEEDS\Opcn Space Projec:tIRPS830 Thalia Trinity Presbyterian Church\summaryoftcnns.doc
r
~
./;
~
o
o
~
~
~~
/)
/
'~
()
OWN
R 0 A D
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WILLIAMS FARM
.
15 NOV 2(IG5
DEPARMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION NIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBUC SCHOOLS
WPL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LAND SURVEYORS CIVI.L ENGINEERERS
a 1lIl'_
,..,..
IDO'
I
~"
R~~"t.
.-a:'3!'.' ".'t'
0.:.:.'$'. ......_10....'
.'=: '.' .:. i;t.,
<u~, . ,..S..
{~\~ i;]
"c- ."-j
-:....... .' .'J
~.~ ~...~..4".J
'''::;~..!
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Sale of Property - Williams Farm Parcel to School Board
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background: The Williams Farm property is located at 1068 Newtown Road, in
the Bayside Planning Area of Virginia Beach. The fifty-seven and six tenths (57.6) acres
site was acquired from the Williams family in January 2004 at a cost of five (5) million
dollars through CIP 4-004 Open Space Program Site Acquisition. During the planning
phase of acquiring the site, and ever since, there has been a commitment to sell a
portion of this property to the City of Virginia Beach School Board ("School Board") for
elementary school improvement projects. The sale of land totals approximately 17.771
acres to the School Board for $1,264,972. Also, the School Board proposes to dedicate
2.760 acres of land to the City as part of a new right-of-way that will serve both the
schools and public park. Attached are exhibits showing the property proposed for sale.
. Considerations: The Schools/City Site Selection Committee approved the
location and use of the property for an elementary school on July 20, 2005. In addition,
the School Board approved the purchase of the site on June 6, 2006. The projects
identified for the site are two new elementary schools; a 37.5-acre public multi-use park
including open space, and trails; a new public road; regional stormwater management
improvements and landscaping for the areas. The entire area includes approximately 90
acres of City and School property, representing a $40,000,000 investment for new
community educational and recreational projects. The funding from the sale of the
property is requested to fund the Williams Farm Park CIP 4-046. The park site is
planned to provide informal athletic facilities as well as multi-use areas for the
community; In addition, the park has been planned to accommodate the development
of a recreation center facility, if the site is chosen as the most appropriate location. The
Newtown Road Elementary School renovation project, New Elementary School 2008,
and the Williams Farm Park projects will be contracted for construction together to
achieve a more comprehensive and seamless approach to implement the projects.
. Public Information: Various public information meetings have been held to
explain both the School's acquisition and the development of the Williams Farm Park
projects. Most recently, briefings have been provided to the Northwest Beach
Partnership, Lake Smith Terrace Civic League, and the Council-appointed Open Space
Subcommittee. All three groups were supportive of the projects. In addition, there is a
public hearing as part of the approval process for this item,
. Alternatives: An alternative would be to not sell the 17.771 acres to the School
Board; however, this would significantly delay the two school projects and leave few if
any viable alternative locations.
· Recommendations: Approval
· Attachments: Ordinance; Master Plan for Williams Farm
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting DepamnentlAgency: Parks and Recreatioif
City Manager: k-,~~
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY
2 MANAGER TO SELL 17.771 ACRES OF REAL
3 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1068 NEWT OWN
4 ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR
5 $1,264,972 TO THE VIRGINIA BEACH
6 SCHOOL BOARD.
7
8
9
10 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the ~City") owns 57.6
11 acres of real property located at 1068 Newtown Road, in the City of
12 Virginia Beach, Virginia (the ~williams Farm property");
13 WHEREAS, the City desires to sell two parcels totaling 17.771
14 acres of the Williams Farm Property (collectively the ~property")
15 to the City of Virginia Beach School Board (the ~School Board");
16 WHEREAS, the School Board has a need for the Property as a
17 location for a new elementary school and a portion of the planned
18 Newtown Road Elementary School renovation site;
19 WHEREAS, the revenue from the sale of the Property will fund
20 the construction of park and recreation improvements in conjunction
21 with the planned educational facility improvements on the williams
22 Farm Property;
23 WHEREAS, as a part of the sale of the Property, the School
24 Board has agreed to dedicate to the City a right-of-way consisting
25 of 2.760 acres (the "Right-of-way");
26
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
27 Virginia (the ~City Council") is of the opinion that the sale of
28 the Property and the planned improvements to the property will
29 provide valuable public resources to the community;
30 WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the
31 acceptance of the dedication of the Right-of-Way will promote
32 better use of City-owned property and the overall improvements on
33 the Williams Farm Property.
34 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
35 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
36 1. That the City Council authorizes the sale of the Property
37 pursuant to ~ 15.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
38 which Property is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto.
39 2. That the City Council authorizes the acceptance of the
40 dedication of the Right-of-Way pursuant to ~15.2-1800 of the Code
41 of Virginia (1950) as amended, which Right-of-Way is also shown on
42 Exhibi t A_.
43 3. That the City Manager or his designee is further
44 authorized to execute all documents that may be necessary or
45 appropriate in connection with the sale of the Property, so long as
46 such documents are in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached
47 hereto as Exhibit B and acceptable to the City Manager and the City
48 Attorney.
49
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
50
Virginia, on the
day of
, 2006.
CA9997
X:\OID\REAL EST A TElAssoned Projecls\Williams Fann- Three School Road\ WilliamsFannSaleOrdinanceJune132006.doc
R-l
June I, 2006
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
- LEGAL
~~~
/Public Works Real Estate
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Department
EXHIBIT A
NOW OR FORMERLY
GPIN 1468-82-2230
CIIY OF VIRGINlA BEACH
INST. NO. 2004012900 1 5999
EXISTING
RIGHT-OF -WAY
PROPOSED
NOW OR FORMERlY~\ PARCa1A
GPlN 1468-82-2230 "-
CITY Of' VIRGINIA BEACH \
INST. NO. 200401290015999 \...........-4
~ ~
~o \
~~ ~
r/:,O
~
PROPOSED
.. \.' T. HREE SC~OOL RD.
.,""1 RIGHT-Or-WAY
j........~..........K AREA-133.667' S.F.
. . . " OR 3.069 AC.
....,' , \
:/", PROPOSED :
r.N:~) PROPERlY LINE \
..;.. ,. .~ PROPOSED \
_'__" PARCEL 1 0 \
---. "
. .~
\.. ./
"v'
\.
PROPOSED\
THREE SCHOOL RD.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
DEDICATION
AREA- 120.230 S.F.
OR 2.760 AC.
I
NEWTOWN ROAD
as.tENrAR'f
i SCHooL 1m:
PROPERlY LINE
TO BE EXTINGUISHED
i-.-.__._
~ . -..._-..----~....
;
NOW OR FORMERLY
GPIN 1468-82-22.30
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
I NST. NO. 200401290015999
CD
at
- PROPERlY TO BE ACQUIRED
BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CIIY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
- PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-W..W DEDICATION
BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
EXHIBIT DEPICTING
PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED
BY
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
FROM
THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
DATE: APRIL 6. 2006 SCALE: '"=500'
~
ClW'HIC SAl.E
REVISED: APRIL 28. 2006
LANDMARK
5544 Greenwich Road - Suite 200
Virginia Sellch. VA 23462
Tel. (757) 473-2000
Fax (757) 497-7933
Emoil: Imd90londmorkdg.com
4029 Ironbound Road - Suite 100
Williamsburg. VA 23188
Tel. (757) 253-2975
Fox (757) 229-0049
Emoil: ImdgOlondmorkdg.com
DESIGN GROUP
FngIneers . PIanneIs . ~
Larxlsape Ardmas . EnvIrorwnentaI ConsuItlnts
DRAWN BY: TH CHECKED BY: ESP DRAWING NO: 3178';/ PROJECT: 2004013-004,08
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF TERMS
AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF
APPROXIMATELY 17.7710 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1068 NEWTOWN ROAD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
OWNER:
City of Virginia Beach
BUYER:
School Board ofthe City of Virginia Beach
SALE PRICE:
$1,264,972.00 payable at Settlement by check.
SETTLEMENT
DATE:
June 15, 2006. Due Diligence is 90 days after contract fully executed.
Settlement to occur within 15 days of that date.
SPECIAL TERMS
AND CONDITIONS:
. Dedication ofthe Right-of-Way occurs on or before Settlement.
o
o
~
-l
~
N
R 0 A D
~~~~~
~ .~'-\~.
!e' S-L..
.~..' :s,
<.,........ j'~
l~" "'~. ~J.#
~~~~<;-.:
~~~
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
m WILLIAMS FARM
~ ~ ISNOV~
~ DEPARMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION NIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
- WPL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECI'S LAND SURVEYORS CIVIL ENGINEERERS
.
f1 rxr 'JIt1 11I11
~ I
~~w8E1"
.....~,Io'.<....,. .c.:/"-
~~....<.'~",~,,,;~<~~,:%~~
\.,)
........,...,../
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Establish Capital Project #4-046, 'Williams Park Improvements," and
Appropriate $1,264,972 from the Sale of property for the purpose of Park Infrastructure
Development
MEETING DATE: June 13,2006
. Background: The Williams Farm property is located in the 1000 block of Newtown
Road in the Bayside Voting District and the Bayside Planning Area. The City acquired
the 57.6-acre site from the Williams Family in January 2004 for $5 million through CIP
Project #4-004, "Open Space Program Site Acquisition." At the onset of the site
acquisition, the City made a commitment to sell a portion of this property to the Virginia
Beach School Board for a new elementary school, funded by CIP Project #1-075,
"Elementary School 2007 -08." The sale of land to the School Board includes
approximately 17.771 acres for a purchase price of $1,264,972.
. Considerations: CIP project #4-046, 'Williams Park Improvements," will be established,
and the $1,264,972 from the sale of property to the School Board will be appropriated to
fund the park infrastructure development for the Williams Park project. The new park site
is planned as a 37.5-acre public site to provide flexible-use areas, open space, and trails
for the community. The shared access road to the park and school sites is funded as a
separate CIP project, #2-053, "Access Road for Elementary School 2008," at a total cost
of $1 million.
. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council
Agenda process. Various public information meetings have been held to explain both
the School's acquisition and the development of Williams Park projects. Most recently,
briefings have been provided to the Northwest Beach Partnership, Lake Smith Terrace
Civic League, and the Council-appointed Open Space Subcommittee. All three groups
were supportive of the projects.
. Alternatives: The City could decline to sell the property to Schools, which would
eliminate the funding source for park development.
. Recommendations: Approval
. Attachments: Ordinance and Map of Development Plan for Williams Farm
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Parks and Recreatio~
City Manager: ~ t . ~~
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH CAPITAL PROJECT #4-
2 046, "WILLIAMS PARK IMPROVEMENTS, " AND
3 APPROPRIATE $1,264,972 FROM THE SALE OF
4 PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARK
5 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
6 WHEREAS, the City acquired the Williams Farm parcel in January
7 2004; and
8 WHEREAS, at the time of the purchase the City committed to
9 selling a portion of the Williams Farm parcel to the School Board
10 for an elementary school.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
12 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
13
1.
That
Capital
Project
#4-046,
"Williams
Park
14 Improvements," is hereby established.
15
2.
That $1,264,972 from the sale of property to the School
16 Board is hereby appropriated to the FY 2005-06 Capital Improvement
17 Budget, Project #4-046, "Williams Park Improvements," for park
18 infrastructure development, with revenue from local sources
19 increased accordingly.
20 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
21 Virginia,. on the day of , 2006.
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of
the City Council.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
~. k.
City Attorney's
CA10048
X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Wil1iarns Park ORD
R-2
June 1, 2006
~"-
~~~:+~,
/9<</1: . '\1:],
!gi ~~~
<.!- . :->
't\~, . l!l
l:".",/..-~~~",~J
~.,,,,~,,,,,..~,J~
-.~....
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $43,560 from Cost Recovery Revenue
and $4,944 from the Fire Department Gift Fund to the Fire Department's FY
2005-06 Operating Budget
MEETING DATE: June 13,2006
. Background: The Virginia Beach Fire Department receives income throughout the
fiscal year for cost recovery of expenses mitigating hazardous materials incidents, use
of training facilities and instructors, and court-ordered restitution for department
expenses related to false calls and intentionally set fires. The Fire Department also
receives gifts to the organization. Each of these specific types of unanticipated
revenues is placed in an itemized revenue account to facilitate correct appropriation into
operating budgets and historical evaluation of cost-recovery efforts.
. Considerations: The requested appropriation of cost recovery funds totaling
$43,560 will- be apportioned back into the Fire Department's operating budgets for
payroll, equipment/supplies and apparatus maintenance/fuel based on the average
distribution of expenses for all affected events and incidents during the fiscal year. The
gift fund balance of $4,944 will be used to purchase items specifically designated by the
donors for livability items for specific stations, Operation Smoke Detector, and special
projects of the Life Safety Education program.
Without appropriation of cost recovery funding, operating budgets cannot support
specific activities such as public private partnerships in training or would be forced to
estimate revenues during the annual budget process. Cost recovery is not a steady
revenue stream and does not lend itself to incorporation into the budget in that manner.
Appropriation of donated funds in this manner maintains accountability as well as
improves assurance that funds are used in a timely and appropriate manner.
. Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council
agenda process.
. Recommendations: Approval.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Approval
Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department
City Manager: ~ lL ~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
$43,560 FROM COST RECOVERY REVENUE AND
$4,944 FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT GIFT
FUND TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2005-06
OPERATING BUDGET
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA
8 BEACH, VIRGINIA:
9 1) That $43,560 in cost recovery revenue is hereby accepted
10 and appropriated to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06 Operating
11 Budget for reimbursement of various costs, with miscellaneous
12 revenue increased accordingly.
13
2) That $4,944 in additional gift fund revenue is hereby
14 accepted and appropriated to the Fire Department's FY 2005-06
15 Operating - Budget to support several fire programs, with gift
16 fund revenue increased accordingly.
17
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
18 Virginia on the
day of
, 2006.
Approved as to Content:
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency:
~~~
Managem t S rvices '
CA10047
X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Fire Dept Gift Fund ORD
R-3
June 2, 2006
~ai;:::~
~~.... ~.~2...
-a:"'l" ~}
f.~ l"~ -- ..~~,
t.l:: ~~)
(':i- 'E~)
(',... ~:,;
".' -~./'",;
~:~..~.!~
~..,...,
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $350,000 in Federal and State Revenue to Provide Child-
Care Subsidies to Eligible Low-Income Parents
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background: The Fee System Child Care program is managed and operated by the
Virginia Beach Department of Human Services. It provides child-care subsidies to eligible low-
income parents who are employed and requires parental co-payments on a sliding-fee scale.
The program supports family goals of economic self-sufficiency and child development by
providing substitute parental care, protection, guidance, and early childhood education.
Payments are made directly to approved child-care providers on behalf of eligible children.
Virginia Beach currently serves 1 ,936 children per month from birth to 13 years of age at an
average cost to the department of $382 per child per month. State policy requires localities to
maintain waiting lists for child care when funds are not available. As of the end of May, Virginia
Beach has a waiting list of 559 families with 868 children.
The State Department of Social Services provides allocations to localities from the Federal Child
Care Development Fund and State General Fund. The State Department of Social Services
monitors statewide expenditures and redistributes surplus funds from localities that are not
using their allocations. Virginia Beach has received a supplemental allocation of $350,000 for
FY2005-06 from these surplus state funds.
. Considerations: No additional City funds are required. Without child care, the parents
currently receiving subsidies could possibly lose their jobs or be at risk for child neglect.
. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council
agenda process.
. Recommendations: Approval.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency: Human Services ~ ~
City Manager:~'L ,~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $350,000 IN
FEDERAL AND STATE REVENUE TO PROVIDE CHILD-
CARE SUBSIDIES TO ELIGIBLE LOW-INCOME PARENTS
WHEREAS, additional surplus federal and state funds are
7 available to the Department of Human Services to provide child-care
8 subsidies to eligible low-income parents currently on a waiting
9 list for these services.
10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
12
1. That $129,850 in additional state revenue is hereby
13 appropriated to the FY 2005-06 Department of Human Services budget
14 to provide child-care subsidies to eligible low-income parents,
15 with state revenue increased accordingly.
16
2. That $220,150 in additional federal revenue is hereby
17 appropriated to the FY 2005-06 Department of Human Services Budget
18 to provide child-care subsidies to eligible low-income parents,
19 with federal revenue increased accordingly.
20
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
21 Virginia, on the
day of
, 2006.
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of City
Council.
Approved As to Content:
Approved As To Legal
Sufficiency:
~~
CA10051
X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Child Care Surplus ORD
R-3
June 2, 2006
~~
#~;:~.;.f""&)
('ff"~"';;:;'f1,;'
fcf : ~.~~- ~~,
~~\~. . r !~~
'-,\~":- , ~.l /J
"l:.-t/...~~ ~:r
.....~.:.~
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $45,703 in Department of Criminal Justice
Services Federal Grant Funding to Provide Services to Young Adolescents and Their
Families
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background: The Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded the Department of
Human Services $45,703 for the Department of Criminal Justice Services Multi-Systemic
Therapy Grant. Multi-Systemic Therapy is a closely structured and monitored form of in-home
therapy for adolescents and families, with the primary focus upon the parents. The Virginia
Beach Juvenile Court Service Unit refers families to the program. After five months of Multi-
Systemic Therapy, parents should be able to manage their children without further professional
intervention.
. Considerations: No additional City funds are required.
. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council
agenda proc~ss.
. Recommendations: Approval.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance
Submitting Department/Agency: Human Services
City Manager: ~ t, ~~
~~
1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRITATE
2 $45,703 IN DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
3 SERVICES FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING TO PROVIDE
4 SERVICES TO YOUNG ADOLESCENTS AND THEIR
5 FAMILIES
6 WHEREAS, the Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded
7 the Department of Human Services $45,703 in federal grant funding
8 to provide MUlti-Systemic Therapy Services to young adolescents and
9 their families.
10 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
12 That $45,703 in federal grant funds is hereby accepted from
13 the Department of Criminal Justice Services and appropriated to the
14 FY 2005-06 Human Services Operating Budget to provide services to
15 young adolescents who are referred from the Virginia Beach Juvenile
16 Court Service Unit and their families, with federal revenue
17 increased accordingly.
18
19
Adopted by the
Virginia, on the
Council
day of
of
the City of Virginia Beach,
, 2006.
Requires an affirmative vote by a majority qf the members of
the City Council.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
{pIJlVlLU ~ L
ctty Attorney' Office
CA10050
X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\DCJS Grant ORD
R-3
June 2, 2006
,:~:~t:.~
~~:~-::; ;.~~
,..0....... ....""9.,)
~~)'
....,.\::....~~~...-.,
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $125,104 from the Fund Balance of the General Fund and
$125,104 from the Fund Balance of the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund to
the FY 2006-07 Operating Budget of the Sheriff's Department to Support the Increased
Costs of the Central Booking Program
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. ,Background: The Central Booking Program is responsible for processing arrestees
for all law enforcement agencies utilizing the Virginia Beach Correctional Center. This involves
fingerprinting and photographing of each arrestee. Currently, the staffing at Central Booking
only allows the Sheriff's Department to accept a limited number of prisoners arrested on
outstanding warrants from Virginia Beach Police Officers, which requires the officers to appear
before a magistrate. With the additional personnel, Central Booking will begin accepting all
prisoners brought to the Correctional Center by Virginia Beach Police Officers with outstanding
warrant, thus allowing the officers to return more quickly to their regularly-assigned duties.
In the approved FY 1991-92 Operating Budget, the City agreed to fund the centralization of
Central Booking in the Sheriff's Department. The number of inmates processed in 1995 was
983, while in 2005 the number of inmates processed was 2193, a 123.1% increase. Currently,
within the City's budget for Central Booking, there are twenty-nine full-time positions.
. Considerations: In order to maintain current services within Central Booking, the
Sheriff's Department is requesting four full-time Deputies as well as four full-time Records
Technicians. Six positions require funding in FY 2006-07 (four Deputies and two Records
Technicians) with the remaining two positions (two Records Technicians) needed in FY 2007-
08. During FY 2005-06, the Police Department and the Sheriff's Department DARE program
both experienced vacancies that will generate at least $125,104 in each of their respective
funds. This funding will lapse into fund balance of these funds at the close of FY 2005-06 and is
available for ,appropriation to fund these positions for one year.
In addition to the six positions in FY 2006-07, two additional positions will be included in the
Sheriff Department's FY 2007-08 budget, with 50% of the costs provided by the Sheriff's
Department Special Revenue Fund and the other 50% provided by City General Fund
appropriations. This reallocation will provide permanent funding for all eight positions.
. Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council
agenda process.
. Alternatives: Without additional funding, Central Booking will transition to the Police
Department.
. Recommendations: Appropriate $125,104 from the Fund Balance of the General
Fund and $125,104 from the Fund Balance of the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund
to the Sheriff's Department FY 2006-07 Operating Budget to provide one-time funding for six
positions for Central Booking in the Sheriff's Department. On-going funding for eight positions
will be provided through permanent reallocations with the FY 2007-08 budgets of the Sheriff's
Department and the City.
. Attachments: Ordinance
Recommended Action:
Approval
Submitting Department! Agency: Department of Sheriff and Corrections
City Manager:~ j.(, ~ b(l"2,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $125,104
FROM THE FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL
FUND AND $125,104 FROM THE FUND BALANCE
OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SPECIAL
REVENUE FUND TO THE FY 2006-07 OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO
SUPPORT THE INCREASED COSTS OF THE
CENTRAL BOOKING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the police Department and Sheriff's Department
11 have vacancies in FY 2005-06 that will result in funding lapsing
12 into the Fund Balances of the General Fund and Sheriff's Special
13 Revenue Fund; and
14 WHEREAS, six additional positions are required in FY 2006-
15 07 and two additional positions are required in FY 2007-08 to
16 maintain current services within the Central Booking Program.
17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
18 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
19
1.
That $250,208 is hereby appropriated to the Sheriff's
20 Department FY 2006-07 Operating Budget to support costs of
21 Central Booking in the amounts and sources set forth below:
22
a.
$125,104 from the Fund Balance of the General Fund.
23
b.
$125,104 from the Fund Balance of the Sheriff's
24
Department Special Revenue Fund.
25
2. That revenue from local sources is hereby increased
26 accordingly.
27
3. That six full-time positions are hereby established in
28 the FY 2006-07 Operating Budget.
29
4. That in addition to the six positions established in FY
30 2006-07, two full-time positions will be added in the Sheriff's
31 Department FY 2007-08 Operating Budget with 50% of the costs for
32 all eight positions to be provided by permanent reallocations
33 within the Sheriff's Department and 50% of the costs provided by
34 the City.
35 5. That this ordinance is effective July 1, 2006.
36
Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
37
Virginia on the
day of
, 2006.
Approved as to Content:
Approved as to Legal
Sufficiency:
.............-....
'-.k (1. f.~~
City Attorney's Office
CAI0045
X:\PA\GG\OrdRes\Sheriff Central Booking ORD
R-3
June 2, 2006
K. PLANNING
1. Application of DANNY K. MARTIN for a Chani!e ofZonini! District Classification
from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District at
5840 Burton Station Road to develop an office-warehouse facility.
DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE
DEFERRED
STAFF RECOMMENDS
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
May 9 and 23, 2006
DENIAL
APPROVAL
2. Application of BELLAMY ASSOCIATES, L.C. for a ChanJle of ZoninJl District
Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-1S Apartment District at
4416 Princess Anne Road to develop multi-family dwellings.
DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
DEFERRED INDEFINITELY
RECOMMENDATION
February 28,2006
APPROVAL
3. Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a ChanJle ofZoninJl District Classification from AG-1
and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District on the north side
of the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way (unimproved), west of Rockingchair Lane.
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
STAFF RECOMMENDS
March 23, 2004
March 28, 2006
APPROVAL OF
ALTERNATIVE 4
APPROVAL
INDEFINITELY DEFERRED
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
4. Application ofLBH, LLC for a ChanJle ofZoninJl District Classification from AG-1 and
AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential with a PD-H2 Planned Unit
Development District Overlay and B-1A Limited Business District on the west side of
Princess Anne Road, southwest of Sand bridge Road, to develop a residential neighborhood
of mixed units and a restaurant.
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
STAFF RECOMMENDS
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS
DENIAL
APPROVAL
5. Applications of OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C. at 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive
and 2209, 2213, 2217, 2216, 2208 North Oliver Road:
DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE
a. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive,
beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake
Bradford
b. Chanfle ofZoninfl District Classification from R-IO (SD) Residential District to
Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District
c. Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVAL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at
City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive,
Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. The fol.
lowing applications will be heard:
DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
Bellamy Associates, L.C. Application: Chan!!e of Zon-
in!! District Classification from R-7.5 Residential to
Conditional A-18 Apartment at 4416 Princess Anne Road
(GPIN 1476609340), The Comprehensive Plan desig.
nates this site as being within the Primary Residential
Area. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop
mult~family dwellings. (This application was indefinitely
deferred by City Council on February 28, 2006.)
DISTRICT 7 . PRINCESS ANNE
AlCAR, L.L.C. Application: Chanee of Zonine District
Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural to Condi-
tional R.7.5 Residential on the north side of the Nimmo
Parkway Right-of-Way (unimproved and Rockingchair
lane (GPINS 2404337163; 2404573796;
2404564943). This application was indefinitely
deferred by the City Council on March 23, 2004 and
March 28, 2006..
lBH, llC Application: ChanE!e of ZoninE! District Clas-
sification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural to Condi.
tional R-l0 Residential with a PD-H2 Planned Unit
Development District Overlay and B.lA limited Busi-
ness on Princess Anne Road, southwest of Sandbridge
Road (GPINs 2404809627; 2403698016;
2403886753; 2403890088; 2403798068;
2403793035; 2414014092). The Comprehensive Plan
designates this site as part of the Princess Anne Transi.
tion Area, suitable for residential uses developed in
acCordance with the Comprehensive Plan policies for
this area. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop a
residential neighborhood of mixed unit types and a res.
taurant
DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE
Ocean Properties, l.L.C. Application: Chan!!e of Zon-
inE! District Classification from R-l0 (SO) Residential to
Conditional B-4 (SO) Mixed Use District on property
located at 4856. 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and
2209, 2213, 2217, 2216, 2208 North Oliver Road
(GPINs 1479374693: 1479377611; 1479375680;
1479377588; 1479375753; 1479375863;
1479376912; 1479377850; 1479377750). The Com-
prehensive Plan designates this site as being within the
Primary Residential Area - Shore Drive Corridor. The
purpose of this rezoning is to develop multi-family dwell-
ings.
Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Application: Conditional Use
Permit for multi-family dwellings at 4856. 4840. 4848,
4832 Shore Drive and 2209, 2213. 2217. 2216. 2208
North Oliver Road (GPINs 14793746930000;
1479377611; 1479375680; 1479377588:
1479375753: 1479375863; 1479376912;
1479377850; 1479377750).
Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Application: Discontinuance,
closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver
Drive. beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and
extending to its tenninus at lake Bradford.
All citizens are invited to attend.
a.~4. /d-
Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC
City Clerk
Copies of the proposed ordinances. resolutions and
amendments are on file and may be examined in the
Department of Planning or online at
httD:/ /www.vbl!:Ov.com/deDt/Dlanninl!:/boards/DC
L. For in(onnation call 385-4621.
, If you are physically disabled or visually impaired
I and need assistance at this meeting, please call the
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303. Hearing
impaired, call: TDD only at 427-4305. (TOO. Tele-
phonic Device for the Deaf).
Beacon May 28 & June 4, 2006
15176846
- 55 -
Item v..K 7.
PLANNING
ITEM # 55201
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Council Lady Wilson, City Council DEFERRED until
the City Council Session of May 23, 2006, an Ordinance upon application of DANNY .K MARTIN for a
Conditional Change of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF DANNY K. MARTIN FOR A
CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-5D TO
CONDITIONAL 1-1
Ordinance upon Application of Danny K. Martin for a Chanfle or Zoning
District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to
Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District on property located at 5840
Burton Station Road (GPIN 1458894322). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE
Voting:
11-0 (By Consent)
Council Members Voting Aye:
Harry E. Diezel, Robert M Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S.
McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve,
Peter w: Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
None
AArn' 0 .,flfI^
- 48-
Item V.M.7.
PLANNING
ITEM # 55152
Attorney R. E. Bourdon, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant.
Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Diezel, City Council DEFERRED until the
City Council Session of June 13, 2006, Ordinance upon application of DANNY K. MARTIN for a
Conditional Change of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF DANNY K. MARTIN FOR A
CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-5D TO
CONDITIONAL I-I
Ordinance upon Application of Danny K. Martin for a Chanfle of Zoninfl
District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to
Conditional I-I Light Industrial District on property located at 5840
Burton Station Road (GPIN 1458894322). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE
This Deferral will enable the applicant to encompass within the proffer that water and sewer be drawn to
the property. This is important with an industrial use.
Voting: 9-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S.
McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron
A. Villanueva and Rosemary Wilson
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Richard A. Maddox and James 1. Wood
May 23, 2006
R-5D
o f'ROI'EfaY, CITY OF NORFOLK
IAKL W/UCIIT C.oLI' COU/lSL
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Danny K. Martin - Change of Zoning District Classification, 5840 Burton
Station Road (DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE)
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Danny K. Martin for a Chanqe of Zoninq
District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional 1-1
Light Industrial District on property located at 5840 Burton Station Road (GPIN
1458894322). DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE
This item was deferred by the City Council on May 9 and May 23. After the May
23 meeting, the applicant submitted this additional proffer:
'When the Property is developed, if required by the Grantee, the party of
the first part shall extend public utilities to service the Property, or, at the
option of the Grantee, participate on a prorate basis in providing public
utilities to the service area, which includes the Property."
. Considerations:
The applicant proposes to rezone the existing property, zoned R-5D Residential
District, to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District in order to develop a 16,200
square foot office-warehouse facility. According to the application, the primary
tenant of the proposed building will be a corporation owned by the applicant.
Several setback variances will be sought from the Board of Zoning Appeals as
the surrounding properties are all zoned R-5D and thus setbacks beyond those
normally required are necessary.
A study has been undertaken jointly by the City of Virginia Beach, the City of
Norfolk, and the Norfolk Airport Authority to assess the potential
for comprehensive development of the area in which this rezoning request is
located. The study area is bound by Lake Wright on the west, Northampton
Boulevard on the south, Baker Road on the east, and Norfolk International
Airport on the north, and comprises approximately 400 acres. The study, known
as the Northampton Boulevard Corridor Master Plan Study, is currently in draft
form and has not yet been approved by the City Council. The draft study
recommends changing the zoning of much of the existing residential property
located within the study area to zoning districts that would permit commercial
uses. However, prior to such rezoning, the study also recommends assemblage
Danny Martin
Page 2 of 2
of land for high density development, specifically multi-story class A & B office
campus park with mixed uses to include flex/office, research and development
and light industrial and retail.
While the proposed use can be viewed as consistent with the draft study's basic
recommendations to move this area from residential to commercial and industrial
uses, the current proposal falls short in that it does not reflect a consolidation of
parcels to form a parcel that can support the type of development envisioned .
Approval of industrial zoning on this one parcel is equivalent to opening this area
to industrial rezoning on a case-by-case basis on small parcels with no
assurance of public water or sewer service (water and sewer are not available in
this area). If approved, the public's opportunity to achieve a comprehensive,
high-quality redevelopment of this area could be compromised.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 7-1 to approve
this request, as proffered.
. Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager: ~ ~ .1f& I'?L.
~~
~
DANNY MARTIN
Agenda Item # 19
April 12, 2006 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith
REQUEST:
Chanae of Zonina District Classification from
R-5D Residential District to Conditional 1-1
Light Industrial District.
R-SD
o f'ROf'urrr. OTY Of NORf(JUr;
IMt WR1CHT GOlr COURSC
ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 5840 Burton Station Road.
GPIN:
14588943220000
COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT:
4 - BAYSIDE
SITE SIZE:
1 acre
APPLICATION HISTORY: This item was deferred at the January 11, 2006 public hearing.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant proposes to rezone the existing R-5D
residentially zoned property to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial
District in order to develop a 16,200 square foot office warehouse facility. According to the application,
the primary tenant of the proposed building will be a corporation owned by the applicant. Several setback
variances will be sought from the Board of Zoning Appeals as the surrounding properties are all
residentially zoned and thus setbacks beyond those normally required are necessary.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: There is an existing single-family dwelling on the property.
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
. Vacant I R-5D Residential District
. Single-family dwellings I R-5D Residential District
. Vacant I R-5D Residential District
. Single-family dwellings I R-5D Residential District
D~NYMARrrIN
Ag~hpa .ltem;';~Ft9
~@9!1
NATURAL RESOURCE AND
CULTURAL FEATURES:
The site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, however, there are no
apparent environmental features on this site.
AICUZ:
The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS
Oceana.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Burton
Station Road in the vicinity of this request is a two (2) lane collector road, Burton Station Road is not
designated on the MTP and improvements are not anticipated in the near future for this right-of-way.
TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic
Volume
Burton Station 4,200 ADT I 6,200 ADT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use 0< - 20
Road Service "C") - 9,900 ADT 1 ADT
(Level of Service "0") Proposed Land Use 3 -
71 ADT
,
Average Dally Tnps
2 as defined by existing duplex zoning
3 as defined by proposed office/warehouse
WATER & SEWER: There is no City water or sewer available to this site. Health Department approval will be
required for private wells and septic systems.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this property as party of
Strategic Growth Area (SGA) 1 - Northampton Boulevard Corridor Area. The Plan's policies for Strategic
Growth Area 1 recognize that this area has evolved into a major employment center in South Hampton
Roads with an exceptional transportation access that serves its corporate and industrial clientele. This
area should build on its strength as a major corporate, employment and industrial base. A master plan
study of this SGA is currently underway through the City's Economic Development Department.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Staff recommends denial of this
request. A study has been
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
D~NNYMAF:I!rIN
AgEinda...ltem?~19
... .....Pag.....e2
, .N,_,_,.:' .....-:... 'C-'':;,,'. ....-;',.,'~',',.._:'
undertaken jointly by the City of Virginia Beach, the City of Norfolk, and the Norfolk Airport Authority to
assess the potential for comprehensive development of the area in which this rezoning request is located.
The study area is bound by Lake Wright on the west, Northampton Boulevard on the south, Baker Road
on the east, and Norfolk International Airport on the north, and comprises approximately 400 acres. The
study, known as The Northampton Boulevard Corridor Master Plan Study, is currently in draft form and
has not yet been approved by the City Council. In sum, the study recommends changing the zoning of
much of the existing residential property located within the study area to zoning districts that would permit
commercial uses. The study also recommends assemblage of land for high density development,
specifically multi-story class A & B office campus park with mixed uses to include flex/office, research and
development and light industrial and retail.
While the proposed use can be viewed as consistent with the draft study's basic recommendations to
move this area from residential to commercial and industrial uses, the current proposal falls short for
several reasons.
1. This parcel is one of twenty residential lots along Burton Station Road that the City has identified
for acquisition. The land assemblage acquisition strategy for the Northampton Boulevard Corridor
Master Plan is scheduled on the City Council pending items list for -a Council briefing in May
2006.
2. This area has a tremendous opportunity to expand and improve the City's economic base. The
draft study envisions the redevelopment of underdeveloped properties with uses compatible and
complementary to the Norfolk International Airport, and with uses that will take advantage of the
area's transportation advantages. This part of the City has exceptional transportation access as
the area is served by the Norfolk International Airport, railroad lines linked to both port terminals
and land transport, as well as quick access to Interstate 64 and State Route 13.
3. This proposal does not represent an efficient use of the land as the use recommended within the
study for this site is class A and B office space. Approval of this proposal would set the stage for
the type and quality of future development along Burton Station Road and perhaps, more
importantly, limit the opportunity for consolidated and coordinated redevelopment of properties in
the vicinity.
4. Staff feels that a piecemeal approach, such as that proposed, falls short of the City's ultimate
goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for the Strategic Growth Area #1. Staff has
consistently advised those considering development and redevelopment proposals along Burton
Station Road to assemble several parcels. The Comprehensive Plan states "Any development
proposal should be accomplished through conditional rezoning employing substantial parcel
consolidation" (page 63). Staff has consistently recommended against a piecemeal approach for
transitioning this residential area to the City's desired goal of creating a major corporate,
employment and industrial area.
5. This site and the surrounding area are not currently served by City water and sewer. Approval of
industrial development dependent on wells and septic systems is not advised. As mentioned
above, approval of this proposal would likely begin a domino effect of piecemeal development
reliant on wells and septic systems, contrary to the City's vision of class A and B office space,
and other requests similar to this one are sure to follow.
In sum, approval of industrial zoning on this one parcel is equivalent to opening this area to industrial
rezoning on a case-by-case basis with no assurance of public water or sewer service. If approved, the
public's opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, high-quality redevelopment of this area could pass by.
I?~NYMA~~IN
Ag~n~altem;t!,19
....~g~t~
PROFFERS
The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The
applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these
proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"
(S107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve
as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning.
PROFFER 1:
When the Property is developed, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development on the site in
terms of vehicular access, parking and building orientation, the conceptual site plan entitled "PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN OF PART OF BLOCK 17, ON THE PLAN OF CORNICK FARM FOR DANNY MARTIN, Virginia
Beach, Virginia," dated September 13,2005, prepared by John E. Sirine & Associates, Ltd., which has been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
("Concept Plan") shall be adhered to.
PROFFER 2:
When the Property is developed, the building referenced on the Concept Plan shall have the architectural
appearance, design features and exterior building materials depicted on the eight (8) photographs identified
as "Cornick Farm Office Warehouse for Danny Martin," dated September 13,2005, which have been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
("Elevations") .
STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above fail to offset the problems identified with this rezoning,
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated September 29, 2005, and found it to be
legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to
meet all applicable City Codes.
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police
Departmf!'nt for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site.
O:~NY MA~ThfIN
Ag~nc:ta Jtem:~i.19
.ie~$i!~
AERIAL OF SUBJECT SITE
"~.,'~ . .^F~:,.'<':;'
DANNY MARTIN
Agenda Item;#: 19
e~ge 5
"'" ;;:' """>,-':':.\>:0'"""
.'<\" .
CPiIlI~as.-esoa
~.....,
,
S iiS'-48'E
CARL .:. il,
llllOJii 1lllJSr
AI
GP....~.5IJ70
121' ~
...
r-~~
~'SF.1rI.f'~~
'A -
-~b
-., :;j
CMRAGE DOOR
(T'lPIC.\L)
I g
JLJ
I !
60.
\
,
\
~:'t
b
:;j
b
g
~
a 0
$I
~!
p~~ .,
~ '0
iii
~.
t:;
I
,..
~
o
<=
:{
1.000 ACRE WA~ilDlHO
, 1"-7llO SQ, IT,b
1- lil. Ill.2OO Sl:l.FT. rorAL.
IS f/l 1
~ -~ ;
~ ~ ;
~
I
I
~
,:.
a i
? :1'ii
of i1",
~ie ~;
~$l ~,.
~ 1-
...
!I
ti
III
:so
i"i
~
.,
i.~!
IUl~
~jl!
5 l!
~~~
f
'"
lS
S
'"
~ DOOR
(t'iPlCAL;
VAIWlCE REWiREll TO WAM: AIlD!
!l!:llfJCE . Zl' . (lP.1E!:OIlY. LANDSCAP!
At;O. lI.lII.lllHG st1DACK
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
. .... . - -'. ........'. .-..
'.".-.-- -. -,-..... c.."..'.. .:..: ...
DANNYMABTIN
Agen~a ..ltemFI19
~~$JE~t~
PROPOSED BUILDING EXTERIOR
~~NYMA~rrIN
Ag~nda .ltemj~:19
~i.lg~7
PROPOSED BUILDING EXTERIOR
DANNY MARTIN
Agenda ltelll1l19
P,~ge, 8
PROPOSED BUILDING EXTERIOR
,,,,"". '0- ._"""'_. """""..:"
DANNY MARTIN
Agenda Item;##: 19 .
....Pag~9
PROPOSED BUILDING EXTERIOR
R-5D
o PROPER1Y, 01Y Of NORfOLK
LAKE WRIGHT GOLf COURSE
00:
Conditional Zoning Change from R5D to Condo 1-1
I 1 1 0/08/79 CHANGE OF ZONING (B-2 to 0-2) Granted
06/14/82 CHANGE OF ZONING (0-2 to 1-1 Denied
Industrial)
01/25/05 Granted
2 02/13/01 CHANGE OF ZONING (B-2, 0-2 & 1-1 Granted
to Conditional 1-1)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (hotel) Granted
3 OS/24/05 CHANGE OF ZONING (Conditional 1-1 Granted
to Conditional B-2)
4 01/25/82 CHANGE OF ZONING (B-2 to R-8) Granted
5 12/17/84 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (fuel Granted
sales)
ZONING HISTORY..
Dt~NNY MARTIN
Agenda Item4#: 19
.Pag~.11
.
Jj DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated
organization, complete the following:
1. list the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees,
partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
Danny K. Martin
2. list all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entitf
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
X Check here if the applicant is NOTa corporation, partnership, firm, business, or
other unincorporated organization.
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant.
If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other
unincorporated organization, complete the following:
1. list the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members,
trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach Jist if necessary)
Travis Lee Baker
2, list all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entitr
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
X Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation. partnership. firm, business,
or other unincorporated organization.
1 & 2 See next page for footnotes
Condnional Rezoning Application
Page 11 0112
Revised 91112004
z
o
.......
~
U
~~
~
<;.::)
Z
.......
Z
o
.N
ga
~
o
.......
F-c
.......
~
Z
o
u
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
qANNY MA~~IN
Ag~"da...ltem~(1.9
. ...~~~~l2
z
o
........
~
u
........
bJ
~
t..::)
z
........
z
o
N
ga
~
o
........
f-4
........
~
Z
o
u
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES
List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect
to the requested property use. including but not limited to the providers of architectural
services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal
services: (Attach list if necessary)
John E, Sirine & Associates, Ltd.
William E. Wood & Associates
Sykes, Bourdon, Ahem & Levy, P.C.
1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one
corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the
voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Govemment Conflict of
Interests Act, Va. Code ~ 2.2-3101.
2 "Affiliated business entity relationship' means "a relationship. other than
parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a
controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in
one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared
management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be
considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship
include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two
entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share
the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or
personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship
between the entities." See State and Local Govemment Conflict of Interests Act, Va.
Code ~ 2.2-3101,
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
I understand that. upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been
scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for Obtaining and posting the required
sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing
according t . e instructions in package.
h ~
Danny K. Martin
Print Name
Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant)
Travis Lee Baker
Print Name
Cond~ional Rezoning Applica1ion
Page 12 of 12
Revised 9/112004
DISCLOSURE STA TEM:ElNT
"---..,- '" ... ... :",: ...,.....:.,
DANNY MARTIN
Agenda Item #.19
. . Page} 3
=
Item #19
Danny K. Martin
Change of Zoning District Classification
5840 Burton Station Road
District 4
Bayside
April 12, 2006
REGULAR
Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #19 Danny K. Martin. An Ordinance upon
Application of Danny K. Martin for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-
5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-I Light Industrial District on property
located at 5840 Burton Station Road, District 4, Bayside.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon,
I'm a Virginia Beach attorney and I am representing the applicant in this matter, which is
Danny Martin. Let me begin by requesting that let me incorporate all my remarks and
those of Mr. Travis Baker and Ms. Phyllis Willoughby on this item at your public hearing
both on January 11,2006 and February 8,2006 in to the record of this hearing. I'd also
respectfully request that a copy of the material that I provided to the Commission that is
highlighted portions of our three Comprehensive land use plans relate to Burton Station
also be included in the Planning Commission's record of this hearing, which will be
forwarded to City CounciL I would like Council to get all of those hearing records and
verbatims. Obviously, you have all heard this matter twice, and again, I don't believe
there to be any public opposition to this request. The request is in my estimation one that
is completely consistent with the land uses recommended for this area in our
Comprehensive Plan, and have been so recommended for more than two decades. We
have a one-acre site on the north side of Burton Station Road, which is approximately
2oo-feet west of an 0-2 zoned property and an I-I zoned property, which was rezoned
from 0-2 hotel development just last year in 2005. There is already a hotel built on the
other side of that property and a commercial property being constructed today on the
comer of Burton Station and Northampton Boulevard. I don't think Burton Station Road
is going to get moved anytime soon. We asked this property be rezoned to I-I Light
Industrial for an office warehouse use, which is similar to dozens of other facilities in this
very area in an around the airport industrial park. In fact, and almost identical
application, in terms of the proposed land use and the size of the property and facility was
approved this Planning Commission in January 2006 and City Council of February 2006
for Tank Lines, Inc., and it was on the consent agenda in both cases. I had the privilege
of representing them and that property was on Diamond Springs Road near the corner of
Northampton Boulevard. This office warehouse is primarily for Mr. Martin's existing
successful business. Mr. Marin is a life long resident of Virginia Beach. He has a quick
sub lock and interior trim item business that he sells those items that he stocks and creates
to builders for new construction and renovation projects. This property like many, many
others in Burton Station is and has been zoned R-5 Residential for 5,000 square foot
=
Item #19
Danny K. Martin
Page 2
single-family development for decades, yet there is no water nor sewer has ever been
provided. It is because the City, and understandably in my estimation doesn't want to see
more residential developments here. That is not a secret. But what is less obvious and
still pretty clear to me is the Development Authority of our city has no money, nor any
inclination to pay these long suffering property owners the fair market price for their land
based upon a land use, which is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. The Baker
Family, Mr. Baker is again here today. He's owned this property for more than 43 years.
Mr. Martin has offered the Baker Family a fair price. He's proffered the city a very
attractive plan for a land use, which is appropriate for this area. He has no problem
putting in a generator and a water tank to provide a sprinkler system for the building.
That has been done in other areas of the City. The City does not have any money to buy
the land. They have been offered the opportunity on numerous occasions including by
Martin to pick up his contract. They don't want to pay fair market value for the land. In
my estimation as an office warehouse because they don't have any money. Yet, at the
same time they're depriving the family owners any ability to develop their property in a
manner consistent with the Plan by opposing this type of development. And that is what
is recommended to you today that you continue down the road or their stuck in purgatory
with nothing they can do with their property. I believe that to be a totally inequitable
situation, .which has exhausted the patience of the Baker Family, as I have said who has
owned this property for over 43 yeas. Mr. Martin is a well respected established
businessman in the city who is willing to come in and build a building that will suit his
business needs so he can expand his business in our city, and I don't know how it can get
a better utilization of the property given all the circumstances that exist as a "pie in the
sky" idea that this property is going to b e accumulated, and we're going to have big
office buildings there. We heard a little bit about it, I guess in February by one of the
members of Development Authority team members of coming to speaking to you. As
much as I think a lot of might like to see it, it is not reality. These people need to be able
to utilize their property in a manner that is fair and equitable and consistent with our
Comprehensive Plan. I believe this application is purely and clearly that, and I read in the
paper not to many weeks ago. I believe Vice Mayor Jones said there is no money and
doesn'tthink there is going to be any money to do anything out here because all of our
assets are being bundled into buying land in APZs and Interfacility Traffic Areas, and
other parts of the City. This isn't going to blow the plan for Burton Station is my point.
It is the type of use that will go in Burton Station and should go in Burton Station. But
these folks just can be continued to be put down and not have the opportunity to develop
their property. Thank you. I hope you all will see fit to recommend approval of the
application as proffered, and pass this on to City Council.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bourdon, when
you said that the City had no money, I understand what you said, and understand the
reason with the BRAC concerns and stuff, does the Development Authority have no
money either?
Item #19
Danny K. Martin
Page 3
Eddie Bourdon: As I understand it Mr. Knight, and you heard from the realtor two
months ago. There is no money available that can earmarked to buy property there. Mr.
Martin met with the Real Estate Department City of Virginia Beach when this came up in
January and they were asked how much is your contract for, gave them the answer. We
can't buy it. We don't have any money. I don't know what else I can tell you. All they
told us was there was no money. I want the application approved. Don't get me wrong
but a bigger point, and I think that is one that the City can't continue to ignore is we got
to do something to allow these people out here who don't have title problems, who don't
have title issues and want to see some use of their property, the opportunity to do
something if there is a plan that is proposed, as I believe this one is and that is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines with regard to an industrial use, an office
warehouse for that area.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you.
Are there any other speakers Mr. Strange?
Joseph Strange: There are no other speakers.
Barry Knight: I'll open it up for discussion. Mr. Bernas.
=
Jay Bernas: I don't know if anyone on staff can help me with some clarification as far as
what is going up to Council in May? I understand that when we were briefed by the
Development Authority in February that it was suppose to be heard on February 28, 2006,
and it was postponed to May. What exactly is going to City Council in May?
Robert Scott: I can tell you generally what is going to City but not exactly. There will
be, I suspect a discussion about how to go forward with development in this area. I agree
with a lot of what Mr. Bourdon told us just now. I do. I agree with everything that he
said. I agree with a lot. I don't agree with a "pie in the sky" plan. It's a tough plan to
pull off but we pull of a lot of tough plans. But it is going to involve a more investment
- .
by the City that what is taken place. Obviously, I don't think the issue is lack of money so
much as it was, I understand discussions that took place that the property owner and our
City real estate people were not together on price. And maybe we need a long harder look
at that in practices of using their advantage that is inappropriate but I think that is what
created the problem. I feel like the City Council is going to have to make some decisions
about this. This is some of the things that Mr. Bourdon mentioned. I think that some
discussions have got to be held and some decisions have got to be made about what we
are going to do this area and its development and our approach to people, who own
property in that area right now today. So generally speaking, that is the kind of discussion
that I think will at least start. Where it goes, I don't know. But I think that is the start of
the discussion.
Barry Knight: Thank you, Are there any other questions? Discussion? Mr. Ripley.
Item #19
Danny K. Martin
Page 4
=
Ronald Ripley: Yeah. I think the applicant has been very patient and I think back to an
application that we had on the hotel, which is just to east of this property and it's at the
comer of Northampton and Burton Station. We had the same kind of dilemma. This
goes back quite a few years. The hotel application wanted to move forward but we had
this potential joint plan with the City of Norfolk and the City of Virginia Beach. That
happened to some extent but it just didn't seem to die. Of course, a couple of months ago
we addressed this again, and we were told there was going to be some discussion at the
City Council level and that didn't take place. I understand that things get put off. We
certainly had some urgency with BRAe. No disrespect intended by that statement. But,
in all due respect to the applicant, I think the applicant has rights to. I felt all along too
that if you don't have any money and if you have a plan in place, which would be very
helpful we could develop around a plan but we don't have a plan in place. This seems to
fit within and I don't disagree with the applicant's attorney said, its consistent with, in my
mind, the Comprehensive Plan of what could go into this area. And it would not be
consistent, I don't think for someone to develop this residentially at this time. I think that
would be inconsistent with the future of the Burton Station area. I think this would fit in.
I think maybe the plan would have to work around this to some extent. But I don't think
that it is that hard to work around. It's facing up on the road. It's not like it's in the path
of someth!ng new. There might be some new right-of-way that's been planned but it
would probably remove the hotel if it were to extend through this property other than the
way it is laid out. Ijust can't see why we should not act on this. I'm going to vote in
favor of the application. I think we ought to move it off the Planning Commission, move
it to City Council, and if City Council, Lord knows what happens when it gets there, but
that will be at their desk. For us, to keep here bouncing at Planning with no direction,
and I don't mean that derogatory but there is no real direction that we could get our hands
around, given the consistency of what I think is proposed for the area, I think that it is
appropriate to approve it.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree.
Eugene Crabtree: I tend to agree with Mr. Ripley. Just what I don't think we have been
given any real concrete reasons why we should not proceed with this application and go
forward. What is proposed and what is out there, in the future, I may live long enough to
see it. Who knows? But this is here and now. I think the applicant has been put off long
enough that he needs to have answer.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Henley
Al Henley: I agree with Mr. Ripley and Mr. Crabtree. I think this applicant's family has
owned this for 43 years and now he has an application that I feel that is a proper use. He
has a business that he will utilize this facility for. I think if the City had a concrete plan,
and if this application was in conflict with that, then I think we would have a lot of
concerns but right now it is not. I think it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
I would be favor of this application.
Item #19
Danny K. Martin
Page 5
Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Livas.
Henry Livas: Yes. I would support this also. I think it is compatible with the overall plan
in that area. I think it is time to move it along.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Bernas.
Jay Bernas: Although I agree with the other Commissioners as probably compatible, I
think give the same rationale that we deferred this item in February that it was going to be
heard by City Council, which was suppose to be February 28, 2006, and we know,
hopefully, it will be heard in May. Given that same rationale that hopefully with the plan
that theyare presenting to City Council will give us some direction on how this whole
entire area will develop and whether or not what is going on with Norfolk International
Airport Authority, I think given that same rationale why we deferred it initially, I would
recommend deferring it until City Council hears it in May.
Barry Knight: Okay. Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Strange.
=
Joseph S~ange: Well, I agree with so far with Jay except I think that the applicant has
been patient enough. I think when does your patience run out? To me, I think the time is
now. I think this person is very financial. I'll be voting to support the application even
though I wish we had better information to make a decision.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Strange. Is there any more discussion? Let's entertain a
motion. Ms. Katsias.
Kathy Katsias: I'd move that we accept the proposal.
Barry Knight: We have a motion made. Do I have a second?
Al Henley: I'll second it.
Barry Knight: Mr. Henley. We have a motion on the floor made by Kathy Katsias and a
second by Al Henley to approve Danny Martin, agenda Item #19. Is there any other
discussion? Call for the question.
AYE 7 NAY 1 ABSO ABSENT 3
ANDERSON ABSENT
BERNAS NAY
CRABTREE AYE
HENLEY AYE
KATSIAS AYE
KNIGHT AYE
Item #19
Danny K. Martin
Page 6
LIV AS
RIPLEY
STRANGE
WALLER
WOOD
AYE
AYE
AYE
ABSENT
ABSENT
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 7 -1, the Board has approved the application of Danny K.
Martin.
Eddie Bourdon: Can I briefly thank you all very much. I wanted to apologize to Mr.
Scott. I did use the term "pie in the sky" and that was really directed at what was said
about moving Burton Station Road at the briefing a couple of months ago. I don't think
there are any plans of "pie in the sky."
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any other business to be brought before
the Commission today? If not, we will call the meeting adjourned.
=
Item #16
Danny K. Martin
Change of Zoning District Classification
5840 Burton Station Road
District 4
Bayside
liebruary 8, 200~
REGULAR
Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary, will you call the first item to be heard and ask for his
representative?
Joseph Strange: The first item to be heard is Item #16 Danny K. Martin. An Ordinance
upon Application of Danny K. Martin for a Change of Zoning District Classification from
R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-I Light Industrial District on property
located at 5840 Burton Station Road, District 4, Bayside with two proffers.
Barry Knight: Welcome.
Eddie BOll!don: Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia
Beach attorney and I represent Mr. Martin, who is in the audience this afternoon. The
two folks that have just come forward, I'm going to let them speak for a moment. You
heard me last month and I'll talk a little bit more about what you already were briefed this
morning. This is Mr. Travis Baker. Mr. Baker and his family own this property and have
owned this property for approximately 40 years. Ms. Willoughby is a licensed
commercial real estate agent and she has had this property and others listed. She has
some testimony that she would like to put on the record. After that, I'll talk to the
application again.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Welcome sir. State your name.
Travis Baker: Hello. Travis Baker.
Barry Knight: Sir.
Travis Baker: This morning, in the informal meeting, I think it was and I listened to the
Project Development Management give his presentation. While some of what he said
was inaccurate, some of it was true. The City did start acquiring the properties out there
in 1992. Three years ago, they did send an appraiser out to us. What they did was they
had two appraisers. We had to pick an appraiser from the list. They told us we could
have one of our own and they would send one. Well, the one that we would have was the
one they had selected. We had a list of appraisers that they gave us that we had to choose
from. The appraiser came out and told us that the City was going to allow us to move
into another house of the same size house that we already had. That was their plan to
acquire our homes. He told us that if we were living in a two-bedroom one-bath house,
Item #16
Danny K. Martin
Page 2
~
that is what we would be allowed to move into, irregardless of the number of acres we
were sitting on now. None of us thought it was fair. That is not how business is done.
So they went ahead and did an appraisal and we all fell that the price was too low. Now, I
have a ratified contract on the house now. The selling price is twice the amount that
Virginia Beach was willing to pay me for the property. Every one out there wants to sell
their property.. Everyone. We're not trying to hold the city up. The Developmental
Manager asks for February 28,2006, and he was speaking in theory that Virginia Beach
might come up with the money to acquire those properties out there. This has been going
for 15 - 20 years now. I have a ratified contract today and I can close on the property if
you guys go ahead and let us rezone it. It is going to be rezoned anyv,ray just like the
developmental manager said. So, that is about it. I have a lot to say but I can't think of
all of it right now. But that is the gist of it.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Baker.
Travis Baker: Thank you.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. State your name please.
Phyllis Willoughby: Good afternoon. I'm Phyllis Willoughby. I'm an Associate Broker
with William E. Wood and Associates. I was originally introduced to the group Burton
Station in 1992. I spoke before the Council members years ago. I was brought in again
in 2004, and met the homeowners. And yes, they are interested in selling their property.
I listed, which I have a list or properties. I don't know if you want to see those.
Barry Knight: You can hand them to Mr. Livas.
Phyllis Willoughby: So those were all the properties that I have listed. As you can see
where the dots are, are where the properties are located. And, I market the properties
internationally. I even went to the City and brought them the same information that I had
all these properties listed. These homeowners are interested in selling their homes. I
gave them all the information and they came back and told me that they weren't interested
in purchasing. I mean this is what they just told me in 2005 when I went to the office.
And, I spoke to Mr. Lawson personally and he said that they have not been able to get
together on the future plans. It could be 20 years, 30 years from now, and that I was
really just shooting in the dark. But I had confidence in these homeowners and I felt they
had been oppressed for so many years, and I felt that I would give my best energy into
marketing. Like I said, I market internationally and so I was able to sell a few. The
problem is that it doesn't have city water and sewage there. It's an ideal location. The
city has been, you know, one minute they said they do. I got them all listed. They had
the opportunity because the people have signed even all the heirs so there were not title
issues at that point. And they were willing to sell their properties but they were not
willing to purchase them. And now that we have someone interested in paying the price
to the buyer now we're going back and forth again and he's being stopped from selling
his property. Do you have any questions for me?
Item #16
Danny K. Martin
Page 3
Barry Knight: Ron.
Ronald Ripley: Did you have all these listings at one time?
Phyllis Willoughby: Yes, I did sir.
Ronald Ripley: And you went to the City and suggested they be interested in purchasing
them and they said they were not?
Phyllis Willoughby: Yes.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you.
Phyllis Willoughby: I personally went there myself.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you ma'am.
Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Chairman, I lived here all my life and I'm very familiar with this
area. I'm not familiar with it as some other people but those residential developments or
related businesses, I think recognize that this is very valuable corridor in the
Comprehensive Plan as I mentioned last month has recognized it for quite a number of
years. I do not know of any area where people have been basically subjected to what this
area has been subjected to now, as Mr. Hudome mentioned this morning twenty years.
Mr. Baker mentioned to me that as Mr. Hudome mentioned this morning it has been a
career for people. They have been working on this area for 20 years. It's more than a
career for his family. They've owned the property for 40 years. They got no water. They
got no city water, no city services, and no city sewer. The reason they don't, and I would
submit, is because the city and the development authority wants to acquire these
properties and to put infrastructure in would make them more valuable, and cost the
taxpayer more money. One hand I could appreciate that but on the other hand it's long
past time for these people to be able to do something with their property. As was stated
this morning, they don't want it zoned residential even though it is zoned residential. We
have submitted a plan, fair market value purchaser coming to the plate to develop the
property, and it's a plan that is consistent with other plans for development that exists in
that area, including one that you all recommended for approval at Diamond Springs and
Northampton Boulevard just last month and it's a difficult situation for a lot of people.
It's past time that something be done about it. I wanted you to hear their testimony. This
isn't an appraisal situation. This is a fair market value contract that Mr. Martin has. Mr.
Martin is a Virginia Beach businessman, developer. He is ready to go in and do what he
has proposed. We didn't know anything about the comments we heard from Mr. Smith
this morning. We are absolutely certain we can deal with those issues with regard to fire
suppression sprinkler systems. There is a way to do that. There is more than one way to
do that. The last thing I would say on the subject is these plans are super secret that no
one has seen. I heard Mr. Hudome say that Burton Station Road is going to be moved.
This body and City Council rezoned two pieces of property on Burton Station Road. One
Item #16
Danny K. Martin
Page 4
already has a hotel on it and the one there's a planned hotel for it. We got a commercial
structure going in on the corner at Burton Station and Northampton. All of this has been
done in the last couple of years. None of us knew it was going to be moved. It wasn't
going to be there any more. So, my beef is not with the Planning Department in any way,
shape, manner, or form. I'm not here to really have a beef with anybody. Ijust think its
past time that these property owners be dealt with appropriately. Let them, if they got an
appropriate development that's industrial let them do it. Otherwise, it's long past time
the City brought the property at fair market value.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon?
Eddie Bourdon: Thanks.
Barry Knight: Let's open it up for discussion. Ron.
Ronald Ripley: I support the application. I think the application is the appropriate type
use for the area. The hotel, which was just mentioned, was brought forward because of
the frustration of this Master Plan, and the possibilities of it working out in the long term
stigma. It's really going to put on the whole area until you actually move forward with a
Master Plan. With that said, I also support a Master Plan for the area. I think it's a
fantastic area that's within the Comprehensive Plan that suggests that it could be an
excellent commerce park for both cities ifthey actually can get together. I just doubt if
they're going to do that in the foreseeable future. If they did, it would be great. I think
what we heard this morning is that the Council is going to be briefed on the 28th, and I
hate, we've done a lot of deferring lately, I hate to do that because I think we need to
move items through, and I think we need to move them on but sometimes it's important
to just to get all the facts. The same thing we did this morning with the Shore Drive
piece. We don't have all the facts. I'm not sure we have all the facts here either. What
the intent of the city is as far as actually moving forward with a Master Plan.
Realistically approaching funding or how it can acquire property so I've got mixed
emotions. I like to see this application go forward. I do support it. The point of actually
getting into if this would actually go to a vote today, I would vote for it. But I would like
to recommend that we defer this again to allow the City Council to receive the report and
react. Perhaps they can discuss acquisitions or whatever with the property owner. I don't
know. I don't want to get in the middle of that. I'm really more about land use but I think
we need to take it to that step, and then hear it, and vote on it next month.
Barry Knight: I think we have a motion to defer by Mr. Ripley.
Dorothy Wood: Second.
Barry Knight: A second by Dot Wood. I'll open it up back for discussion. I'd like to say
that it has been a very, very long time that Burton Station is an area that I understand that
the City wants to upgrade and has wanted to upgrade for many, many years. I personally
know there are some problems with acquiring some of the properties at Burton Station
Item #l6
Danny K. Martin
Page 5
but I think the City should have moved a little faster on moving forward on it, and I
certainly hope that the City Council will read our verbatim and see there are some
property owners, Mr. Baker in particularly, think maybe is being held hostage by a plan or
lack of a plan, and hopefully they will take that into consideration on their deliberations
on February 28th. I know there are people out there that need to do something with their
property. Go ahead Jan.
Janice Anderson: Thank you. I just want to make one comment. It is my understanding
that even if this plan gets approved and goes forward on it, that would still be a voluntary
acquisition by the City. So, if the City goes back to these owners and says this is what
we'll pay you under this plan that is not acceptable then they still can develop their
property l:;>y right and it would be changed to zoning. So, I am a little bit more
sympathetic that this has been since 1992 since the plan started. And even though I think
it has a little more momentum now, I don't have any good feeling that it would be closed
in the near future. So, those are my comments. I don't believe the gentleman should be
held up any longer.
Barry Knight: Are there any other comments? AI.
Al Henley~ I have a question of Mr. Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Yes. Mr. Henley.
Al Henley: Mr. Bourdon, this morning you were in the briefing, and it was indicated by
the Fire Department, Mr. Smith that there was some legitimate concerns regarding fire
suppression. There weren't any fire hydrants and water lines in that area. And, there was
some other issues concerning their turn around movement and so forth, and you had
indicated in your statement just a few moments ago that you were willing to get with your
client and you thought they were able to resolve those? Can you elaborate on that?
Eddie Bourdon: That was the first we heard of any of those questions and issues. I'm
very happy and comfortable with Chief Smith, and talked about those issues. As far
putting sprinkler systems in the building, we can put in a holding tank on site, generator
and a commercial grade system using our own generator, electrical power on site or
putting a water line there. We know where it is coming. That's the proper way of doing
it. In terms of the layout and turn around, again, didn't know anything about that being an
issue or a problem. There are a number of facilities and some, which were approved last
month with a similar type of design. If we need to tweak that to make the turn around, we
can do that. I understood them to say that as long as you had a sprinkle, the turn around
situation was less a problem. We can sprinkle the building. We're more than happy to sit
down and work through those issues. We're confident we can do that. But the first we
heard of the issue was this morning. I don't expect to deal with it here before you all. I
expect it to be done before it comes to you all. That wasn't something that was brought
to our attention until this morning.
Item #16
Danny K. Martin
Page 6
Al Henley: Thank you Mr. Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you.
Barry Knight: Joe.
Joseph Strange: I agree with Ron. I think even though this has been dragging on for
years, I think at this point people are moving on these issues over there and we just saw a
plan this morning. I'm thinking on what it would do to the value of the land if the plan
goes through implemented. I mean, I think there are just a lot of questions at this point
that a 30-day deferral would help solve. I'll be in support of a deferral..
Barry Knight: Is there any more discussion? There is a motion to defer. The first was
made by Ron Ripley and seconded by Dot Wood. I'll call for the question.
ANDERSON
BERNAS
CRABTREE
HENLEY
KATSIAS
KNIGHT
LIV AS
RIPLEY
STRANGE
WALLER
WOOD
AYE 10
NAY 1
ABSO
ABSENT 0
NAY
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-1, the application of Danny K. Martin has been deferred.
."""'"''''''''."."''''''',.'''~.='"'''.'''''~=="="..,,'''''''''._~~.,,',,.,,=''''''"",",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Section Break (Next Page )"""''''''''''''"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"''...'.='''''''''''''''''''''""."',".".",=,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,...=.,,,,
Item #16
Danny K. Martin
Page 7
Item # 1
Danny K. Martin
Change of Zoning District Classification
5840 Burton Station Road
District 4
Bayside
, January 11, 2006
REGULAR
Barry Knight: We'll now proceed to our regular order and we'll go to agenda Item #1
Danny K. Martin. Mr. Strange.
Joseph Strange: An Ordinance upon Application for a Change in Zoning District
Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional I-I Light Industrial
District on property located at 5840 Burton Station Road, District 4, Bayside.
Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm
representing Mr. Martin, and the owners of this piece of property have owned this piece
of property and this location for many decades and generations. I'm passing out and Ms.
Lasley is kind of enough to pass out to you all just excerpts from first of all the 1991
Virginia Beach Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted March 5, 1991 and the November
4, 1997 Virginia Beach Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted November 4, 1997. I've
highlighted references in both ofthese plans to Burton Station. First of all, read the 1991
comment in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It states that "the Burton Station area
between Airport Industrial Park, Norfolk International Airport, the City Line and
Northampton Boulevard can appropriately be developed under conditional zoning as a
low rise medium intensity office park and light industrial area. The 1997 Comprehensive
Plan states, "the attractiveness ofthe Northampton Boulevard, Diamond Springs Road
area as a light to heavy commercial and industrial center contributes to the City's overall
economic health and vitality. It enjoys a unique combination of air, rail, and interstate
highway access. It is the policy of the City to support employment based land uses in the
Northampton Boulevard area including industrial, commercial and office activity." This
property is over an acre in size. And as I said, the owners have owned it for generations.
There is no water. There is no sewer. There are no plans to provide water and sewer.
We certainly recognize that for close to 20 years, the City has been trying to acquire land
in this area for a comprehensive development for industrial and commercial uses. We
have a proposal here on this piece of property that is consistent with the one you just
approved on the consent agenda at the comer of Northampton Boulevard and Diamond
Springs Road. And it is consistent with other development in the Airport Industrial Park
area. We do understand that staff has indicated there is opposition to this and your desire
to defer it. I want everybody to understand that the people who own this piece of property
have been waiting and they've been waiting and they've been waiting. We have someone
here who has come to the table offering them good money and wishes to develop the
property in accordance with what our Comprehensive Plan have been indicating as what
we want to see. Now, again going on 20 years. It is really unfortunate that people who
are stuck in that position where they can't develop their property residentially because it
is not what people want to see. I guess they're waiting for some government buyer to
come along and by all the property. I don't see that is going to happen anytime soon. I
think it is time for the private sector and I know the private sector is going to do it and in
. this case when we see little bit of it and as you head a little bit south on Burton Station
Road towards Northampton Boulevard where we finally seeing some development that
. has been approved. We think that it is a very good application. We think it is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. We have not been advised of any changes suggested that
are to be made to the plan to make it better. We've been told basically that the City or the
Development Authority wants to assemble a whole piece of property, all of it around it,
then do something different pursuant to a plan that you all haven't seen and I haven't
seen. So, we believe it is a good application. The owners of the property, who Mr.
Martin has purchased it with, are not comfortable with this being shoveled aside. But you
all understand and want to see some things and appreciate some ofthe comments that I've
heard from you all in the informal. I can't agree to a deferral but if you were to defer it
that is your prerogative at this point. But I certainly hope that this process will move
forward more swiftly then it has in the last two decades.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Does anybody have any questions for Mr.
Bourdon? _ Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: I don't know if this is Mr. Bourdon for Mr. Scott. The right-of-way that
has been dedicated in here, what is the Master Transportation Plan call for this road? Do
you know right offhand?
Robert Scott: I would have to look at the write up.
Ronald Ripley: It says it has got a la-foot right-of-way dedication. I guess that is
sufficient.
Robert Scott: Mr. Ripley, I don't know. I'm going to have to research it.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thanks.
Barry Knight: Any other comments or discussion? Ms. Wood.
Dorothy Wood: I would like to make a motion that we defer this until February so that
we have a chance to have the Economic Development Director with us. Also, I believe
that City Council is seeing a package in February that will relate to this property.
Barry Knight: A motion to deferby Dot Wood. Do I have a second?
Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it.
Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree seconds. It is open for discussion. Mr. Ripley?
Ronald Ripley: What is the date again that the Council will be briefed? Do you know?
Robert Scott: In the next week or two I believe.
Ronald Ripley: We will have an opportunity to see the study prior to the next Planning
Commission Public Hearing?
Robert Scott: I will see to it that you are properly briefed prior to the next time this
application is brought before you.
Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? We have a motion on the floor to defer Item
# 1 Danny K. Martin. The motion was made by Dot Wood and seconded by Gene
Crabtree.. Let's call for the question.
AYE 11
NAY 0
ABSO
ABSENT 0
ANDERSON AYE
BERNAS AYE
CRABTREE AYE
HENLEY AYE
KA TSIAS AYE
KNIGHT AYE
LIVAS AYE
RIPLEY AYE
STRANGE AYE
W ALLER AYE
WOOD AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has deferred the application of Danny K.
Martin.
Barry Knight: Thank you.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
I n Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6324
DATE: June 2, 2()06
TO:
FROM:
Leslie L. Lilley \;J
B. Kay Wil~
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Danny K. Martin
The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by
the City Council on June 13, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
September 29, 2005 and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal
form. A copy of the agreement is attached.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter
further.
BKW las
Enclosure. .
cc: Kathleen Hassen
~.;i'~"-':;;".
PREPARED BY:
I;JIB SYKhS. ROURDON,
DI AHrnN & liVY. P.c.
DANNY K. MARTIN
TRAVIS LEE BAKER
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 29th day of September, 2005, by and
between DANNY K. MARTIN, party of the fIrst part, Grantor; TRAVIS LEE BAKER,
party of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a
municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the third part,
Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the party of he second part is the owner of a parcel of property
located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 1.00 acre of land which is more particularly described in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel is
herein referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, th~ party of the first part as contract purchaser of the Property
has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia
Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning
Classification of the Property from R-5D Residential District to Conditional I-I
Light Industrial District; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly
development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land
development legislation; and
GPIN: 1458-89-4322o
1
PREPARED BY:
ISB sms. ROURDON.
DI AHrnN & IIVY. P.c.
WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes
incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the
area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the
need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of
the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to
land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which Grantors'
rezoning application gives rise; and
WHEREAS, Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of
and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the I-I
Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable
conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property
to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and
applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and
the ?eed for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, Grantors, for themselves, their successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest,
voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its
governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for
zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make
the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and
govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby
covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running
with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties
and persons claiming under or through Grantors, their successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title:
1. When the Property is developed, in order to achieve a coordinated
design and development on the site in terms of vehicular access, parking and
building orientation, the conceptual site plan entitled "PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
OF PART OF BLOCK 17, ON THE PLAN OF CORNICK FARM FOR DANNY
MARTIN, Virginia Beach, Virginia" dated September 13, 2005, prepared by John
E. Sirine & Associates, Ltd., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City
2
PREPARED BY:
~ SYKfS. ROURDON.
mn AIlrnN & [[\TV. P.C
Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept
Plan"), shall be substantially adhered to.
2. When the Property is developed, the building referenced on the
Concept Plan shall have the architectural appearance, design features and
exterior building materials depicted on the eight (8) photographs identified as
"Comick Farm Office Warehouse for Danny Martin", dated September 13, 2005,
which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on me ~th
the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevations").
3. When the Property is developed, if required by the Grantee, the party
of the first part shall extend public utilities to service the Property, or, at the
option of Grantee, participate on a prorata basis in providing public utilities to
service area, which includes the Property.
4. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed
Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City
ager:'-cies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements.
The above conditions, having been proffered by Grantors and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,
shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the
zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions
shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if
the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new
or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The
conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of
recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by
the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a
resolution adopted by the goveming body of the Grantee, after a public hearing
before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or
resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of
such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void.
3
PREPARED BY:
~ SYnS, ROURDON.
mil AIU:RN & UVY. P.c.
Grantors covenant and agree that:
( 1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing
conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that
any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal
action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or
prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or
proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute
cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits
as may be appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made
pursuant to these provisions, Grantors shall petition the governing body for the
review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the
ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for
pu blic inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning
Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court
of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of Grantors and
the Grantee.
4
PREPARED BY:
~ svns. ROURDON,
m AHruN &. lIVY. P.c.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
D
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of
October, 2005, by Danny K. Martin, Grantor.
/('/f.f? K /I ynl&d:./}_
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006
$
5
PREPARED BY:
13m SYJ(I:S, ROUROON,
mDI Am:RN & 1M. P.c.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
STATE OF VIRGJ~ oI7JI...
~OUNTY OF (ilk , to-wit:
. -
J'l,iJ." The foregoing instrument was ac owledged before me this d!!.~ay of
f.jfl,{IJUY , 2005, by Travis Lee Bake, Grantor.
My Commission Expires:
- /fI~'b1
6
PREPARED BY:
5tIB SYI:IS. ROURDON.
mil Am;:RN & lIVY. P.C
EXHIBIT "A"
ALL THAT certain lot or parcel of land, situate in the City of Virginia Beach
(formerly Kempsville District, in the County of Princess Anne) State of Virginia,
being mown, numbered and designated as Part of Block 17, on Plan of Cornick
Farm, Which plan is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of
Virginia Beach (formerly Princess Anne County), Virginia, in Deed book 66, at Page
156, said property being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the northeastern side of Burton Road at the southern
corner of tract conveyed by J. L. Roberts, et ux, to Menser C. Brown, by Deed dated
June 11, 1951, and recorded in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 288, at Page
105, which said point of beginning is 183 feet (as measured along the northeastern
side of Burton Road) North of the northern side of Farm Road #4 (as said Farm
Road #4 is shown on the Plan of Cornick Farm aforesaid); thence North 270 49'
East along the southeastern side of property conveyed to Menser C. Brown as
aforesaid 362.3 feet to a pin; thence South 550 48' East 121 feet to a pin; thence
South 270 49' West 362.3 feet to a pin in the northeastern side of Burton Road;
thence North 550 48' West along the northeastern side of Burton Road 121 feet to
the point of beginning.
GPIN: 1458-89-4322
ConditionalRezone /Martin /Proffer
7
- 49-
Item V-K 7.
PLANNING
ITEM # 54970
The following registered in OPPOSITION:
James Myers, 1105 Larkwood, Phone:467-8588, concerned relative density and traffic
Debbie Westbrook, 1232 Heathcliff Drive, Phone: 495-7479, resident of Bellamy Woods,
requested INDEFINITE DEFERRAL to study and redesign the proposed entrance of the
application
Josephine Krantz, 4833 Berrywood Road, Phone: 495-3577, Vice President - Bellamy Woods Civic
League, requested INDEFINITE DEFERRAL .
Upon motion by Councilman Diezel, seconded by Councilman Schmidt, City Council DEFERRED
INDEFINITELY Ordinance upon application of BELLAMY WOODS, LC. for a Conditional Change
of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPliCATION OF BELLAMY ASSOCIATES, L.c.
FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-
7.5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO CONDITIONAL A-i8
Ordinance upon Application of Bellamy Associates, L. C. for a Chan!!e of
Zoning District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to
Conditional A-18 Apartment District on property located at 4416
Princess Anne Road (GPIN 14766093400000). The Comprehensive
Plan designates this site as being within the Primary Residential Area.
The purpose of this rezoning is to develop multi-family dwellings.
DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
Voting: 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Harry E. Diezel, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A.
Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A.
Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Robert M. Dyer
February 28, 2006
t~
~~t
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Bellamy Associates, L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Bellamy Associates, L.C. for a Chanae of
Zonina District Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-18
Apartment District on property located at 4416 Princess Anne Road (GPIN
14766093400000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being within
the Primary Residential Area. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop multi-
family dwellings. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE
This item was indefinitely deferred by City Council on February 28, 2006.
. Considerations:
The applicant proposes to rezone the existing R-7.5 Residential properties to
Conditional A-18 Apartment to develop the site with 120 multiple-family
dwellings. The site is somewhat shaped like a triangle, with 91-feet fronting
Princess Anne Road and then flaring to 535-feet at the rear of the site. The
proffered site plan depicts 30 buildings, parking, cabana and pool, and storm
water management facility with a lake fountain. The proposed buildings are
arranged along the perimeter of the site with most of the parking inside the site.
Category IV screening is depicted along the sides and rear property lines.
Additionally, the plan shows for the retention of the existing wooded area along
the rear property line.
The submitted architectural elevations depict models that the developer has used
in other communities throughout the city. The buildings are two stories with four
units each. The building materials are standard siding and faux shake siding.
Examples of the product can be found at the intersections of Princess Anne
Road and Providence Road and Upton Drive and Elson Green Avenue.
The applicant desires that this project meet a need for workforce housing in this
area of the city. The applicant is working with the City's Housing and
Neighborhood Preservation Department for information on low-interest
mortgages, and is targeting a sale price of $200,000.00 or less.
The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendations for this area. The proposed use is considered as infill
Bellamy Associates, L.C.
Page 2 of 2
development since it occurs on defined parcels or tracts of land that are
surrounded by an established arrangement of land uses of similar character.
Land uses proposed for infill sites as well as their density, material, height,
setback, yard area and other design considerations should complement and
reinforce the predominant physical character of the surrounding area. The
proposal for workforce housing is compatible with adjacent residential
neighborhoods as well as the business areas.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to
approve this request as proffered.
. Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~
City Manager: ~ O'8ll1'i
BELLAMY
ASSOCIATES, L.C.
Agenda Item # 19
January 11, 2006 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Faith Christie
REQUEST:
Chanae of Zonina District Classification from
R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional
A-18 Apartment District.
ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 4416 Princess Anne Road
GPIN:
14766093400000
COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT:
2 - KEMPSVILLE
SITE SIZE:
10.063 acres
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant proposes to rezone the existing R-7.5
Residential properties to Conditional A-18 Apartment to
develop the site with 120 multiple-family dwellings. The submitted conceptual site plan depicts a site
shaped somewhat like a triangle, with 91-feet fronting Princess Anne Road and flaring to 535-feet at the
rear of the site. The plan depicts 30 buildings, parking, cabana and pool, and storm water management
facility with a lake fountain, The proposed buildings are arranged along the perimeters of the site with
most of the parking inside the site. Category IV screening is depicted along the sides and rear property
lines. Additionally along the rear property line the plan calls for the retention of the existing wooded area.
The submitted architectural elevations depict the standard homes this developer produces. The buildings
are two stories with four units each. The building materials are standard siding and faux shake siding.
Examples of the product can be found at the intersections of Princess Anne Road and Providence Road
and Upton Drive and Elson Green Avenue.
The applicant believes this project will meet a need to provide workforce housing in this area of the city.
They are in contact with the City's Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Department for information
on low-interest mortgages, and are targeting a sale price of $200,000.00 or less.
".,.,';"-:" .'.-
(',-~,...:>::,
F"-".'::",' :':-"--':,' '::';:__. .'_.' "'_,'
BELLAMY AS~oPIATES~:~~C~
A<,~oda lterr:i,:irt9..
'. .' .::ffl'El~~J
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: Three vacant single-family dwellings.
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING:
North:
· Timberlake and Brenneman Farm - single-family and multiple-
family dwellings / PD-H1 and PD-H2 Planned Unit Development
· Princess Anne Road
· Military Housing, Gas Station and Strip Retail / R-7.5
Residential and B-2 Business
. A church / R-7.5 Residential
South:
East:
West:
NATURAL RESOURCE AND
CULTURAL FEATURES:
There are no natural resources or cultural features associated with the
site.
A1CUZ:
The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS
Oceana.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTPl / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIPl: Princess
Anne Road is a four lane divided major urban arterial. There is a roadway improvement project for the
widening of this section of Princess Anne Road in the current Capital Improvement Plan in the
"requested but not funded" section.
Based upon the trips to be generated by the proposed 132 multiple-family project a right turn lane is
warranted according to the Public Works Standards. The proposed density of the project generates 51
right turns in the peak hours. A right turn lane is warranted at 35 right turns per hour. Due to the limited
frontage of the site on Princess Anne Road Traffic Engineering requested that the applicant explore the
following issues concerning the access to the site:
1. Work with the neighboring property owner (the gas station) to close their western most entrance
and build an exclusive turn lane for the development.
2. . Reduce the number of proposed units to 90.
3. Eliminate the proposed median at the entrance to the site and reduce the entrance to 30-feet in
width at the right-of-way line.
The applicant performed the following:
1. The applicant contacted the adjacent property owner regarding closure of their western most
entrance. They are unwilling to work with the applicant.
2. The applicant reduced the number of proposed units from 132 to 120. The proposed project is
for "work force" housing and any further reduction in units will not make the project feasible. The
reduction in units reduces the right turns from 51 to 46. The difference is 11 turns in warranting
a right-turn lane.
3. The applicant will move the median, or entrance feature, further into the property and reduce
the entrance at the right-of-way to 3D-feet.
TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic
Volume
Princess Anne 37,278 ADT 1 31,700 ADT 1 Existing Land Use ~ -
Road 335 ADT
Proposed Land Use 3 -
813 ADT
Average Dally Tnps
2 as defined by 35 single-family dwellings currently permitted
3 as defined by 132 multiple-family dwellings as requested
WATER: There are two 20-inch city water mains fronting the site. This site must connect to City water.
SEWER: There is an eight-inch city gravity sanitary sewer and a 16-inch force main fronting the site. This site
must connect to City sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station #543 and the sanitary sewer collection system
is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated.
SCHOOLS:
Schoo1 Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2
Enrollment
White Oaks 624 597 10.8 1
Elementary
Larkspur Middle 1822 1866 4.7 -1
Green Run High 1712 1866 7.1 0
'" ' .
generation represents the number of students that the development Will add to the school
2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The
number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students).
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within
the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles in the Comprehensive Plan
for the Primary Residential Area focuses strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character,
economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area, In a general sense,
the established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, located in
and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Staff recommends approval of this
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
<r>':;--'.
.; ,"\,:,.. -',
,....-. -'.w,'--' /-"",
,'. -"~' -A
\~
',,,-;
BELLAMY ASSOCIATES
~9~oda Ite ...
request with the submitted proffers. The proffers are provided below.
The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The
proposed use is considered as infill development since it occurs on defined parcels or tracts of land that
are surrounded by an established arrangement of land uses of similar character. Land uses proposed for
infill sites as well as their density, material, height, setback, yard area and other design considerations
should complement and reinforce the predominant physical character of the surrounding area. The
proposal for workforce housing is compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods as well as the
business areas.
PROFFERS
The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The
applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these
proffers.'in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"
(~107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve
as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning.
PROFFER 1: The Property shall be developed substantially as shown on the "The Villas at Bellamy -
Conceptual Site Plan," dated July 21st, 2005, prepared for the Dragas Companies, which has been exhibited
to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter,
the "Concept Plan")
PROFFER 2: When the Property is developed, a swimming pool and cabana to serve the community's
residents shall be constructed.
PROFFER 3: When the Property is developed, a landscaped entrance feature shall be constructed in
substantial conformance with a monument style sign externally illuminated from ground level as depicted
and described on the "Perspective View at Entrance - The Villas at Bellamy", dated May 4, 2006, which has
been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of
Planning ("Entrance Plan"), or as required to be located by the City of Virginia Beach Traffic Engineering.
PROFFER 4: There will be no more than thirty (30) residential buildings, each one being two (2) stories in
height, and containing four (4) dwelling units per building. The total number of dwelling units permitted to be
constructed on the Property shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) and no dwelling unit shall contain
more than three (3) bedrooms.
PROFFER 5:
The architectural design of the residential buildings will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled
"Architectural Elevations - The Villas at Bellamy", dated July 21st, 2005, which has been exhibited to the
Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The
primary exterior building material shall be synthetic board siding with accents of synthetic cedar shake, and
the colors used may vary from those on the exhibits but all will be earth tones.
PROFFER 6:
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of
applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code
requirements.
,P-'->.,
." <'~:,:;,,:., ~
BELLAMY AS~PCIATES
~~6daJte
::. ".j "
STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated May 25,2006, and found it to be legally
sufficient and in acceptable legal form,
NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to
meet all applicable City Codes.
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police
Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPT ED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site.
.' ^. '\;,.;;.~' .:,..;.>....{</ "
BELLAMY AS~QqIATES'.'&.C.
A~(Jdalteni:l~,t9
. . , '."tl~~~:9
-7' ,,,~',,:::':,""V
AERIAL OF SITE LQ.~~~.Qt,f;:"
. {-""..~'''<,"':: (','--'.,-,~;-:::~,;;..:::.~:,;:: ':,' -'~" ~.
;":<~""L>,>"":,.;:.,:..:; ,
. " ' ,',' '",,",; ....,-....
BELLAMY AS~~CIATES<ir~C. .....
Ag~oda.ltel9
\ "''86
I
I. I I
. [ilia
dlat
PROPOSED SI1Ec"PLA"N",
, ,'" . ~".,.,.." ~' ,
:.'C."",.,-"
BELLAMY AS~QC1ATES,.::~.C.
Ag~()da..ltenj,~~1.9.......
,..' >R~~~,Ol
, -, ',.?~: :'.:~":~
_1
.;w,
:5i
Q(Jl
.=:!
>:
,
.::--;
~:!
e..f\
::1
:oj
'21
".;o!
\0;,.;
'-1
>1
I
i
>.1
81
Cd!
,...... i
....... !
(1.)1
~i
I
~'
cdl
I
001
cd!
....... i
,...... j
.......t l
"'-. !
~!
~....~...'%.
, g ~
d ;.
'Ii- S
~r
1J.......................~.........~....
. i.W=
158-
l;
",0
.....,
PERSPECTIVE DRAWING OF
PROPOSED ENTRANee:':;'>.
'., ,J" /""^"
.' ...~
<S':(':~~"
>"J
BELLAMY ASSGCIATES
ArieOda .Jte
FRONT ELEVA110N
SIDE ELEVATION
PROPOSED BUILDING E~~~~tIOM::"
:: -'-C,.:.", - . ~..,
,/',_~_. .._'c
BELLAMY ASSQCIATES'
Ag~oda .lte
....'.'.....8;.
Conditional Zoning Change from R7.5 to A-18
1. 6/25/02 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion) Approved
2/1/00 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion) Approved
2/24/98 Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower) Approved
10/28/97 Conditional Use Permit (Church Expansion) Approved
2. 3/12/96 Conditional Use Permit (Communication Tower) Approved
5/26/92 Conditional Use Permit (Church) Approved
3. 2/23/99 Rezoning (R-7.5 Residential to Conditional B-2) and Conditional Use Approved
Permit (Gasoline Sales, Carwash)
4. 2/23/99 Rezoning (R-7.5 Residential to Conditional A-12 Apartment) Approved
Rezoning (R-6 Residential to 0-1 Office and B-2 Business)
5/23/88 Denied
5. 5/25/99 Conditional Use Permit (Church) Approved
3/22/94 Conditional Use Permit (Indoor Recreational Facility - Game Room) Approved
Conditional Use Permit (Church)
10/27/92 Conditional Use Permit (Church) Approved
5/22/89 Approved
ZONING HISTORV./'::';',
- . ,>,..... ''">'' ,"-','-':.- ,.
,. - .-
BELLAMY AS~.QCIATES,'.:i:c.
.t\~(lda Jte '.A'19.
"
~ DISCL.OSURE STATEMENT
.
,~,
I
APPlICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a corporatiorl, partnership,firm. business, or other unincorporated
organization, complete the foUowing:
1, List the applicant namefoHowed by the names of aU officers, members, tlUsteeS,
partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
Bellamy Associates, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company: Dragas Managlm'lent
Corporation, a Virginia corporation. Managing Member: Helen E. Dragas,
President/CEO, John C. Buckley III, Senior VICe President, Robert C. Makin,
Treasurer. Joyce B. WItt,Secretary.
Members: Helen E. Dragas, Anita D. Weaver, Mary D. Shearin. JeMifer Steadfast,
Dragas Management Corporation.
2. List aU businesses that have a parent-subsidiaryl Of affiliated business entitf
relationship with the applicant (Attach list if necessary)
See attached list
o Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation. partnership. firm. business, Of
other unincorporated organization.
PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Complete this section Qnlyif property owner is different from applicant.
If the property owner is a corporation, paltnership,firm, business, Of other
unincorporated organization, complete the following:
1. List.the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members,
trustees, partners, etc. below: . (Attach list if necessary)
NlA
2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business e~.
relationship with the applicant (Attach list if necessary)
o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation. partnership, firm, business,
or other unincorporated organization.
Condaional Rezoning AppliI:alicn
P_12of13
z
o
~
t3
t.-'
~
......:1
~
ea
c;..:,
z
~
z
o
~
~
~
o
~
F-<<
~
Q
Z
o
u
"-""'. )~"">- <,...,. .
.' .
> ,','.,.--,-',' ",,,. '
, , ,..^,,'" ~ ....^
, :'>;J'-_~_~;':~","",-"
....,-.'.,'.. .'-'-, ,..."""."'., ..,
BELLAMY AS~Qbl.A TES
A~nda..lte
z
o
.......
~
u
:,
!a
t.:)
n
z
o
N
~
~
o
.......
..E-t
~.
Z Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicanl)
o
c=:t :;ezoning AppIicaliort
-
..
I
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT I
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES
List all known contractors or businesses that have. or will provide serviceswlthrespect
to the requested property use,incIuding but not limited to 'the<providers of8rchitectural
services, real esta1e services. fmancial services, accounting services, and legal
services: (Attach tist ifnecessmy)
See aUached list
1 .Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship tbat exists when one
corporation direc::tfy or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent oUhe
voting power of another corporation." See State andLocalGovemment Conflict of
Interests Act,Va. Code ~ 2.2-3101.
2 "Affiliated business entity relationship. means "a relationship, other than
parent"Subsidiaryrelationship,that exists when (i) one business ehtity has a
controlling owner.mip intefest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in
one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared
management or controJbetween the business entities. Factors that should be
considered in determining the existence of anaffiljated business entity relationship
include that the same person or substantially the same person own or managethe.1.wo
entities; 'there are common or commingled funds or assets; 'the business entities share
the use of the same offices or employees .orothelwise share activities. resources or
personnel on a RtgUlar basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship
between the entities," See State and Local GovemmentConfIict of Interests Act. Va.
Code~ 2.2-3101.
CERTIFICATION: I certify that theinfonnation contained herein is true and accurate.
I understand that. upon.rec8ipt ofnotifieation (post(:ard) thattheapplica~ has been
scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required
sign on the subjeet property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled p\.IbflChearing
a ing to the instructions in this package.
Philio A. Shucet. President
Print Name
Print Name
);""">"
". ~"' ;;..} ).:~ ,0
'..,~ .-
BELLAMY AS~^~IATE&
Agenda Jte
.,:0 _""::...0,
~ . . 0 ..
The Villas at Bellamy Conditional
Rezoning Application List of
Potentially Affi.Iiated. Business
Entities .July 21 f 2005:
Dragas Management Corporation
Dragas.Associates, Le.
Dragas Associates II, LC.
Dragas Associates fll, LC.
Dragas Associates IV, LC.
Dragas Associates V, LC.
Dragas Associates VI, LC.
Oragas AssociateSVU. L.C.
Oragas AssociatesVm, L.C.
Dragas Associates I~ LC.
Dragas Associates X, L.C.
Oragas Associates XI,. .LC.
Hampshires Associates. L.C.
Grove ASsociates, LC.
Dragas AssociatesXlV, LC.
Dragas Associates V, L.C.
FarrcroftAssociates. LC.
Belmeade Associates. L.C.
South moor Associates, LC.
Westbriar Associa1es, L.C.
Grace HiliAssociates,LC.
North . Shore Associa1es, LC.
Defmar Properties, Ine.
Bellamy. Associates,. LC.
The Villas at .Bellamy Ust of
Businesses Providing Services to
the Property:
Kaufman & Canoles. P.C.
Sykes, BouJdon.Ahem & levy, P,C.
Rouse-Slone Associates, Ud.
,. , .'_ ,,,- ~,_,""'~~:./i,.;
BELLAMY A5~~qfATES,,^'rC.
AS~Odalt~ryJs,lt9
. .....e9~~;1~
Item #19
Bellamy Associates, L. C.
Change of Zoning District Classification
4416 Princess Anne Road
District 2
Kempsville
January 11, 2006
REGULAR
Barry Knight: We will now proceed to our regular agenda on the public hearing items.
They are items that we would like to air publicly. We're going to rearrange the order on
just one agenda item. We're going to move agenda Item #19 to the front, then we will
follow in our regular order. Mr. Secretary.
Joseph Strange: Item #19 is an Application for a Change of Zoning District
Classification from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apartment District on
property located at 4416 Princess Anne Road, District 2, Kempsville.
Barry Knight: May we have the representative please?
Joseph Strange: Their representative Phillip Shucet.
Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Please state your name.
Phillip Shucet: Phillip Shucet. I'm the President of Dragas Management Corporation.
Thank you for giving me the chance to speak with you about agenda Item #19 Bellamy
Associates, I know this was the topic of some discussion earlier this morning. Just for a
quick review. This is clearly an infill property project off of Princess Anne Road just a
little bit north of Ferrell Parkway and just a little bit south of South Plaza TraiL It is
targeted for workforce housing with price point targeted below $200,000, yet still a very
attractive project that would hold its value for its owners going forward. We are using a
well-known four-plex product here in Virginia Beach that is four two:"story units to a
building. We are currently proposing that this rezoning from R-7.5 to A-18, currently
proposing the maximum density of 120 units. The exterior of the building would be
regular vinyl siding in addition to some vinyl cedar shake siding, architectural shingles
for the roofing material with the appropriate development of the common elements as
well as a swimming pool and a cabana. We met with adjacent property owners and one
of the issues that we were asked to consider particularly from the Kempsville Church of
God was to possibly relocate the swimming pool from being adjacent to the church to the
other side of the property. That is certainly something that we would do as we moved on
into design and development of the property. The church also asked us and was very
interested in having a permanent fence between the two properties, which we agreed to
do. It was a very practical requirement. The primary issue at hand here is the entrance.
I'd like to review with you just briefly the process that we went through working very
Item #19
Bellamy Associates, L. C.
Page 2
closely and carefully with the City's Traffic Engineering department to come upon an
agreement for the entrance as its currently described and recommended in the staff report.
Having spent 35 years in Traffic and transportation, just wrapping up a term as
Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation, I can tell you that I thought
we worked through to a very appropriate solution. The density began at 241, which was
envisioned as some single floor flats. It was further reduced to 132, and finally reduced
to 120 through this process working with Traffic Engineering. The issue is whether or
not a right turn lane is required, and secondly can it be provided as well? The frontage is
not sufficient for a right turn lane. Our frontage on Princess Anne Road is limited to 90
feet and a right turn lane would normally take a minimum of 120 to 150 feet. We were
asked to speak with the adjacent property owner to the south, the WilcO Service Station,
to see if they would be willing to close one of their two entrances onto Princess Anne
Road, or secondly whether or not they would be willing to share an entrance with us. Not
surprisingly they were not inclined to agree to either of those conditions. Then working
with Traffic is when we did make a further reduction from 132 down to 120, still finding
that stock where we provide affordable workforce housing in Virginia Beach. On
November 9, 2005, the Traffic Engineering Department asked us to reduce the width of
the entrance to 30 feet. In other words, just rather than having an entrance divided by a
median reduce it to a 30-foot standard entrance. We agreed to do that and frankly, I felt
that was an excellent suggestion on the part of Traffic Engineering in order to address this
issue. A couple of days later on November 11,2005, Traffic advised us that the 30 foot
entrance was actually preferable to incorporating the gas station's entrance into a
common turning lane, which would actually create a situation of even more concern. So
on November 11,2005, Traffic said that 30 foot entrance was good solution and in fact a
preferable one. On November 15,2005, Traffic did advise us that if the turn lane
situation was documented in the Planning staff report that they believe that a waiver later
on from Engineering would not be required. So we felt it was important to work with
City staff to document the situation regarding the turn lane into the staff report, which is
done, I believe on Pages 2 & 3 of your staff report. Another question that was asked that
I thought was an excellent one was that you say you want to provide workforce housing,
how do you make that happen? Well, first of all, the economics haveto fall out correctly
and 120 is the minimum place where we can make that happen with this particular piece
of property. If we reduce that down to 90 as was talked about a one point in time, we
really fall into a product similar to one that we are developing now up north of Wesleyan
Avenue, where we got about nine units to the acre. Those sell from $285,000 to
$350,000, which puts out of the realm of affordable housing. We think that it's very
important to stay there. I believe that we would sell out quickly of this product. I think
we would probably absorb 6 to 8 units a month bringing in this much needed workforce
housing into the area. We do control the investment aspect by putting restriction on the
number of investors that can buy into the property. We've worked very closely with the
City staff to apply for monies that would be available to help buyers with financing as
well as below market interest rates. So just to summarize, it is an excellent project. It is
one that brings a much talked about and a well-defined need into the City, in terms of
workforce housing. We recognize that there were some issues with the entrance, and we
Item #19
Bellamy Associates, L.C.
Page 3
believe we worked closely and very correctly with Traffic Engineering to implement and
agree to the suggestion that they offered to us. I would note that the Planning staff did
recommend approval of this rezoning request. I'll be happy to answer any questions Mr.
Knight.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Mr. Bernas.
Jay Bernas: I have a quick question. Can you just go through your process of what
happens when the Planning Commission approves the density and we don't have the
authority to waive any of the public work standards? Can you talk about what your
planned action is to work with Traffic and what your different options are?
Phillip Shucet: Certainly. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bernas. I would refer -again, back to the
November 15,2005 communication where it was indicated that a waiver would not be
required. If the steps that we took to address the entrance were addressed in the staff
report and they are. But beyond that, once the project gets into the development stage or
design stage, as with any project we would continue to work closely with Traffic
Engineering in this case, as far as the final design and specific design of the entrance in
order to make sure that it meets generally accepted engineering practices and standards.
That is not different than the planning process where there is some discussion back and
forth to reach an agreement. At the end of the day a lot of where the goals have to be
balanced. That is why I go back, Mr. Bernas, I thought Traffic recommended that we
reduce the width of the entrance to 30 feet, that was just a very appropriate solution,
which is what we're after a solution to the situation.
Barry Knight: Jay?
Jay Bernas: My other question is when you're working through the site plan review
phase and the development phase, would you continue to work with the adjacent property
owner, the gas station, to look at another possible solution on trying to resolve this issue,
which really is, and it's a traffic issue, but really is a safety issue, and balancing safety
with workforce housing. I applaud what you're trying to do. I think Dragas does a great
job with all of their developments, and I applaud that you're looking in to providing
affordable housing especially with the way housing has gone lately. So, are you going to
continue to work with the adjacent property owner?
Phillip Shucet: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bernas. We would certainly continue to work with
the adjacent property owners as we continue to develop the site in order to make sure that
we find the very best workable solutions to bring this project to market.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you sir.
Phillip Shucet: Yes sir.
Item #19
Bellamy Associates, L.c.
Page 4
Barry Knight: Can you call the next speaker please?
Joseph Strange: Also speaking in support is Mark Cary.
Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Please state your name?
Mark Cary: My name is Mark Cary. I'm Pastor of Kempsville Church of God, which is
property adjacent to the property in question. As Mr. Shucet had noted, we have met with
the representatives of Dragas back, I guess about 90 days ago now. We have received
communication from them that they are willing to consider relocation of the pool and
cabana. Our property has a glass foyer where our congregates exit the sanctuary. And
according to the way we read the site plan that would be in direct visual view from folks
as the come out of our worship service. So ask that consideration be given for that being
moved or fencing that would limit line of site. And they have agreed to that. I just want
to make part of this document that we have discussed that and make agreement on that.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Does anyone have a question? Ron.
Ronald Ripley: Yes. I have a question. Pastor, the driveway is in front of your church, is
there a deceleration lane for your church?
Mark Cary: No sir.
Ronald Ripley: Have you ever had any wrecks by people turning into your church or
corning out of your church?
Mark Cary: I've been pastor here for about 13 months. There has not been an incident.
We operate the church and also a daycare center. There has not been any of that I'm
aware of.
Ronald Ripley: So you have a straight driveway?
Mark Cary: Right onto Princess Anne.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much.
Mark Cary: Yes sir.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you sir.
Joseph Strange: We have one other person signed up that mayor may not want to speak.
DiFelicia Denham.
DiFelicia Denham: That's me.
Item #19
Bellamy Associates, L.c.
Page 5
Joseph Strange: Are you speaking in opposition or support?
DiFelicia Denham: Actually, I have a few questions.
Barry Knight: Please identify yourself.
DiFelicia Denham: I'm DiFelicia Denham. I'm a homeowner in the area. It is going to
be backing into us. What little wood area that is still there, I was questioning the fact that
we have a few wildlife and that I would really like to see it remain but everybody else
may not. Anyway, I was wondering about their fencing. What area of the trees are they
going to take down? Supposedly the Brenneman Farm thing was supposed to be a
wooded area. It is no longer wooded. The trees that are coming up to the side of this are
barely standing there and the bulldozer that works in there every week and keeps coming
up is getting a smaller area. We were wondering about that section developing because it
looks like it is going to be right on top of all this. I'm not in opposition but Ijust want to
make sure that were not going to have them right on top of our little houses. No wooded
area and all the wildlife is gone. I listen to the owl every morning between 5:30 and 6:00
o'clock in the morning. I like to watch the geese come across so, I don't want this to be
an interference. It may not sound like the pool area might even be switched up to be a part
or behind all of the family residential houses that are there now. So, that is another
question for me.
Barry Knight: Mr. Shucet is going to have a chance to rebut so we'll certainly get him to
answer those questions for you.
DiFelicia Denham: Okay. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Does anyone have any questions? Thank you.
Joseph Strange: That's it.
Barry Knight: Mr. Shucet would you like to readdress?
Phillip Shucet: Thank you very much. The lady and I did have a chance to speak before
you convened. I was able to tell her that we would maintain an appropriate buffer around
the perimeter of the property. There are some high canopy trees there so we would pay
attention to providing some appropriate under story cover as well in the area. As far as
the pool goes the pool is not likely to be relocated to the back of the property. What we
were looking at there was more relocating the pool on the opposite side at the front of the
property so the situation in the back remains the same as it was when we had a chance to
meet with the Bellamy Manor Estates homeowners.
Barry Knight: We appreciate that. She had a chance to put it on the record and you got a
Item #19
Bellamy Associates, L.c.
Page 6
chance to answer it on the record. So does anyone have any questions for Mr. Shucet?
Thank you sir.
Phillip Shucet: Thank you.
Barry Knight: We'll open it up for discussion now. Ms. Wood?
Dorothy Wood: Barry. I've watched the development that Dragas Company has done
through the years and have been so impressed with the quality. The quality stands for
itself. I'm delighted to see that they are working now with affordable homes. I see
Sharon Prescott here from Community Development. I know that she a,pplauds this
development. Because of this, I would like to make a motion for approval.
Barry Knight: I have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second?
Jay Bernas: Can I add something to the motion? Not add to the motion, but for the
record can I state that the Commission strongly recommends that the applicant work with
Traffic and the adjacent property owner to resolve the issue of traffic and safety for the
entrance into the site?
Barry Knight: Sure. We'll probably get a second, and then you've already added it, but if
you need to add it again we will. So, we'll look for a second. Ms. Katsias has second it.
A motion made by Ms. Wood and a second by Ms. Katsias. Is there any other
discussion? Would anybody like to weigh in? We've heard what Mr. Bernas said. He
got it on the record. Ms. Anderson.
Janice Anderson: Yes. I'll just make it quick. I agree with what Mr. Bernas said with
regard to the traffic issue that has been highlighted in the report. I am pleased that the
applicant did work with Traffic by one reducing the number of proposed units they had,
and secondly reducing their entrance and changing their entrance from a divided entrance
to just a 30-foot entrance. And I am positive that both the applicant and the City can
come to an agreement that will work for both. This is an infill site. It is a unique size and
shape. I think with the challenges that it is facing because of the small frontage on the
road. But I'm in support of the application.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree?
Eugene Crabtree: I just wanted to add that I think that the applicant is going to continue
working with the property owner next door to resolve the safety and traffic engineering
problems. Once again, I will support it and congratulating them on having a housing for
the workforce of the City, which we need drastically throughout the City. Once again,
this being a Dragas project which is a very high quality product to start off with. I'm
fully in support of it.
Item #19
Bellamy Associates, L.c.
Page 7
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Crabtree: Mr. Henley?
Al Henley: Yes. Thank you. I would like to comment to the lady who has some concerns
about the additional hedging of the wooded area. I did have an opportunity to speak with
the applicant, and they are more than willing to and also include an additional under story
and native plants possibly dogwood and that sort of thing. I know that is a great concern,
and I would be as well, also there would be a buffer in that particular area, and also some
decorative plantings of Category 4 screening, I believe. So, I believe it will be additional
highlight to the community. Also, I would like to encourage the applicant, which he is
willing to do the work with the adjoining property owner and try to hopefully reach a
compromise on addressing the safety issues of the egress/ingress of tha.t community.
Thank you.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Are there any other comments? We have a
motion on the floor to approve agenda Item #19 Bellamy Associates. The motion was
made by Dot Wood and was seconded by Kathy Katsias with six proffers. Lets call for
the question.
AYE 11
NAY 0
ABSO
ABSENT 0
ANDERSON AYE
BERNAS AYE
CRABTREE AYE
HENLEY AYE
KATSIAS AYE
KNIGHT AYE
LIVAS AYE
RIPLEY AYE
STRANGE AYE
VVALLER AYE
WOOD. AYE
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the application of Bellamy
Associates, L.c.
Barry Knight: Thank you.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6325
DATE: June 2,2006
FROM:
Leslie L. Lilley . :GJ
B. Kay WiISO~
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
TO:
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Bellamy Associates, L.C.
The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by
the City Council on June 13, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
May 25, 2006 and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A
copy of the agreement is attached.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter
further.
BKW las
Enclosure
cc: Kathleen Hassen
BELLAMY ASSOCIATES, l.e., a Virginia limited liabi6ty company
TO (PROFFERED 'COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 25th day of May, 2006, by and between
BELLAMY ASSOCIATES. L.C., a VlI'ginia limited liability company. Grantor; and THE
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth ofV..-ginia.
Grantee;
BACKGROUNO:
A. Grantor is the owner of a certain parcel of property located in the
Kempsville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 10.063 acres
which is more particularly deseribed in Exhibit gA" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. Said parcel is herein refened to as the "Property".
8. Grantor is the owner of the parcel described in Exhibit "A" and has
initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map d the City of Virginia Beach.
Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification
of the Property from R-7.5 Residential District to Conditional A-18 Apar1ment District.
GP1N: 1476-60-9340-0000
Prepared By and Return To:
Kaufi'nSI\ and Canoles
Suite 2100
150 West Main S1reeI
Norfolk. Vtrginia 23510
1
C. The Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for
various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation.
D. The Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible
uses conflict and that in order to penn it differing uses on and in the area of the Property
and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types
of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the
protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are
needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise.
E. The Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the
public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning
Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the A-18 Zoning District by the existing
overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical
development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said
amendm~nt to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a
reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the
rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal
representatives, assigns, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and
without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and
without any element of compulsion or auid pro auo for zoning, rezoning, site plan,
building penn it, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of
conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govem the physical development,
operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration
shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the
Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its
successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in
interest or title:
1. The Property shall be developed substantially as shown on the "The
Villas at Bellamy - Conceptual Site Plan," dated July 21st, 2005, prepared for the
Dragas Companies, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is
on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter, the "Concept Plan")
2
2. When the Property is developed, a swimming pool and cabana to serve
the community's residents shall be constructed.
3. When the Property is developed, a landscaped entrance feature shall be
constructed in substantial confonnance with a monument style sign externally
illuminated from ground level as depicted and described on the "Perspective View at
Entrance - The Villas at Bellamy", dated May 4th, 2006, which has been exhibited to
the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of
Planning ("Entrance Plan").
4. There will be no more than thirty (30)' residential buildings, each one
being two (2) stories in height, and containing four (4) dwelling units per building. The
total number of dwelling units pennitted to be constructed on the Property shall not
exceed one hundred twenty (120) and no dwelling unit shall contain more than three
(3) bedrooms.
5. The architectural design of the residential buildings will be substantially
as depict~ on the exhibit entitled "Architectural Elevations - The Villas at Bellamy",
dated July 21st, 2005, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and
is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The primary
exterior building material shall be synthetic board siding with accents of synthetic cedar
shake, and the colors used may vary from those on the exhibits but all will be earth
tones.
6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site
Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies
and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall
continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of
the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue
despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent
amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially
revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be
repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner
of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said
3
of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said
instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of
an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the goveming body of the Grantee, after a
public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of
Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or
resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such
consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void.
The Grantor covenants and agrees that:
(1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be
vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing -body of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and
restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with
such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance
with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement,
damages! or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause
to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be
appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant
to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof
prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and
the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the
office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
and indexed in the name of the Grantor and the Grantee.
4
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
GRANTOR:
Bellamy Associates, L.C.,
a Virginia limited liability company
By:
Dragas Management Corporation
a Virginia corporation, Manager
Cli(: )AAA7I
Philip A. Shucet, President
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 25th day of
October, -2005, by Philip A. Shucet, President of Dragas Management Corporation, a
Virginia corporation, Manager of Bellamy Associates, L.C., a Virginia limited liability
company.
~
~
My
1//5,pP7
(SEAL)
Notary Public
5
Exhibit "A"
Metes and Bounds Description of 4416 Princess Anne Road
(GPIN 1476-60-9340-0000)
Beginning at a point located in the northern right-of-way line of Princess Anne Road
where it meets the western line of a 24' Reserved Road, said point being 943 feet, plus
or minus, from the northwest intersection of Princess Anne Road and Windsor Oaks
Boulevard; thence turning and running along the northern right-of-way line of Princess
Anne Road, N47031'28'W, 91.43 feet, to a pin in the line of property now or formerly
Trustees of The Kempsville Church of God; thence turning and running along the line of
property now or formerly Trustees of The Kempsville Church of God, N36017'32"E,
1392.45' to.a point in the line of property now or formerly CH&B Associates; thence
turning and running along the line of property now or formerly CH&B Associates,
S53030'59"E, 166.79 feet to a pin in the western line of the Subdivision of Timberlake,
Section Thirteen; thence turning and running along the southern line of the Subdivision
of Timberlake, Section Thirteen, S53054'09"E, 368.40 feet to a point in the western line
of a 24' Reserved Road; thence turning and running along the western line of said 24'
Reserved Road, S53051'49'W, 1471.66 feet, to the point of beginning.
Said parcel of land containing 438,350 square feet or 10.063 Acres.
- 80-
Item V-O.lO.
PLANNING
ITEM # 52430
Attorney Eddie Bourdon, Pembroke One Building, 5th Floor, Phone: 499-8971 represented the
applicant, and noted the attendance of Joe Bushey of Clark Nexsen, Douglas Talbot and Alan S. Resh,
re the application for infill development (Nimmo's Quay) of no more than 132 high end
single-family homes located on 112 acres of land, 73 of which are developable land. The proposed
density is no more than 1.8 units per developable acre. This development is surrounded by
6 existing residential neighborhoods. The applicant has agreed to construct two (2) lanes of
Nimmo Parkway from the Fire station all the way to this property at a cost of approximately
$900.000. Sewer and water, at no cost to the city, will be provided.
Douglas Talbot, advised the areas of the wetlands and floodplains have been designed. Under thirty (30)
homes 'are located in the 70 to 75 decibel area. Copies of a map indicating the decibel areas were
distributed to City Council.
The following registered in OPPOSITION:
Captain Tom Keeley. Commanding Officer - Naval Air Station Oceana, 1750 Tomcat Boulevard,
Phone 433-3158, Phone: 433-2922. advised this development lies within 3 miles of Ocean a andfalls
underneath the AICUZ map adopted by the Navy and the City. The issue is encroachment and Oceana is
the number one encroached upon installation in the Department of Defense. Single event noise will be
louder in- this neighborhood which lies directly beneath the departure corridor to major Runway 23.
Rear Admiral S.A. Turcotte. U.s. Navy. Commander - Navy Region Mid-Atlantic. advised this application
may appear as a "pebble", but if one considers the impact of several pebbles (which are under
consideration), it becomes a bolder. All of these will be examined under the Joint Land Use Study, what
areas should be or should not be developed.
Upon motion by Councilman Reeve. seconded by Councilman Wood. City Council DEFERRED
INDEFINITEL Y to allow completion of the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) applications Ordinances upon
application of ALCAR, LL.C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ALCAR, L.L.c. FOR A CHANGE OF
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AJliD AG-2 TO
CONDITIONAL R-10
Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR. L.L.C.for a Chan~e of Zoning District
Classificationfrom AG-I and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-JO
Residential District on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), west of
Rockingchair Lane (GPlN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). The
Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential uses at or
below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the
site as a Conservation Area where land-disturbing activities should be avoided,
mitigated or, under certain conditions, prohibited. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS
ANNE
AND,
March 23, 2004
- 81-
Item V-O.lO.
PLANNING
ITEM # 52430 (Continued)
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATIONOF ALCAR. L.L. C. FORA CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPACE PROMOTION
Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L. C. for a Conditional Use Permit for
Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), west
of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943.' 2404371633).
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
Voting: 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure. Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones. Reba S.
McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. OberndorJ. Jim Reeve. Peter W. Schmidt, Ron
A. Villanueva. Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Richard A. Maddox
Due to illness, Councilman Maddox left at 7:58 P.M.
Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED Pursuant to Conflict of Interests Act :," 2.2-3115 (H) her husband is a
principal in the accounting firm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds
$10,000.00 annually. Goodman and Company provides services to ALCAR. L.L.C. Her husband does not
personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L.G. The City Attorney has advised that although she has a
personal interest in the transaction, because her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR,
L.L.c.. she may participate without restriction in City Council's discussion of, and vote on, the ordinance,
upon disclosure. Council Lady Wilson's letter of October 28,2003, is hereby made a part of the record
March 23. 2004
- 30-
Item V..K..l.
PLANNING
ITEM # 55055
Attorney R, E. Bourdon, Pembroke Office Park - Building One, 281 Independence Boulevard, Fifth
Floor, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant, and was in concurrence with the request to DEFER
INDEFINITELY. to determine the 70 dbD line as it crosses the Alcar property. Because of the scale of
the maps, this line occupies 200 feet. The determination should be provided within 30 to 40 days. The
applicant will meet with the surrounding communities and review the plan re proposed lanes of
Nimmo Parkway.
Patrick C. Ormsby, 1708 Cornsilk Circle, Phone: 427-6633, President- Southgate Civic Organization,
registered opposition to the building of this development, Mr. Ormsby expressed concern re lack
of signage and the project "Nimmo's Quay" is expected to generate 1366 vehicle trips per day.
Upon motion by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councilman Maddox, City Council DEFERRED
INDEFINITELY, Ordinance upon application of ALCAR, L.L.C.for a Conditional Change of Zoning:
ORDINANCE UPON APPliCATION OF ALCAR, L.L.c. FOR A CHANGE OF
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AND AG-2 TO
CONDITIONAL R-7.5
Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L. C. for a Chanf!e ofZoninf! District
Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-7.5
Residential District on property located on the north side of the Nimmo
- Parkway Right-of- Way (unimproved), 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane
(GPINs 2404371630; 2404573796; 2404564943). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS
ANNE
Voting: 11-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Harry E. Diezel, Robert M Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S.
McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve,
Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
None
Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED her husband is a principal in the accounting firm of Goodman and
Company and earns compensation which exceeds $10,000.00 annually. Goodman and Company
previously provided services to ALCAR, L.L, c., although, her husband did not personally provide
services to ALCAR, L.L. C. ALCAR, L.L. C. is no longer a client of Goodman and Company, she could
participate in the best interest of the City.
March 28, 2006
Map J-11
Map Not to Scale
ALCAR, LLC
/kfil\ ~ 1TT1T\I~~~ III i I L\.V'
/t.:/kY7<..Y/'i;;): rlr:-.. -\
1j,f~~Y-L~'I-V'1 /IM
-1/'l.'U~' I'1I illl
10Pl1 _~. R"A....CH I.
I , I \ 10/ I I I ii'
( R-4&~ II. I: I JiiPi ~ <.~fiJD'/~ JE~LJlpk R-IQ I- ~AlL .J.lkl w'~11 B J;~~ f
iOPi,(1 R~ l~ ~~~ I. ,,l T'" ~~ lOPI I L ..fP>J-__LI J I~II\ ;:..\-l'\L~. \ 11-
\~ If '~e-K . ,~:~~~"B~~ES"'" \ \-':.~~
~~~ 1 ~ ~\ > _ ~ h >ff-- r-T \ ~ ~ I
. lClPl \ ~ ~ 11'/ ~ ,\:,,->, ~ ~ ~
. \( / i ... ~ -- ~~
':'tM.::.: 'U(j74""):'1 fo ~ E--
\(:_~ I ~ ~ 1; /;~~
~-~.:.: R-I.S ~ \' -=r ~ II
14.. Crr jI , \ 1\, I
AG-I ~ ~~ 11~ wir ,I lID
AC-I:'~ \ NIMMO pARKWAY ~_ oc.;'1.~" ~~~
p~. :.;:V~:~,z\~~->;.:.;y~~~ I~-IO PRINCESS '1J- ~'~:,...t- --"-75ett~~~~
~ '.- .: '..-' -. '..~:-.\ -: .':/~/ ~ \' ~ ~
~ '~I" :.').:~~~.:.::' .:. ~<:'~:.. LJ:~::"..:';~ I "-\ \ \.) V ::fj --- ~ J :;;'" V
~ :..:;.:...:::.:'"..:.....=-:. .::.........::..~j ;;... R-IO ~__ wOOn~ ~/\fi1~ 1- 't.~ ~
(._:-:'.." '~,:~:"-:c:. ,:::"":',--.~i/.l..: 141 \ ~'II' l. ~~. ~
-'. :". ,',':';-- "". :.. ..,.. '.", ':'", Y ;-.... _.""1. H--I).. 1-"----" '- 1-----.'\L
SOUTHEASTERN
PARKWAY (proposed)
Gpin 2404-57-3796 - 56-4943
.{~I" :~.it~b
f?~. ._~~~
liI .. i
<";. . . ,
(a'7 . l;>
:t'i'" /.:,-,J
l::~...""~"""""
~~~..i.l
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: ALCAR, L.L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification, North of Nimmo
Parkway Right-of-Way, 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (DISTRICT 7 -
PRINCESS ANNE)
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L.C. for a Chanae of Zonina District
Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-7.5
Residential District on property located on the north side of the Nimmo Parkway
Right-of-Way (unimproved), 910 feet west of Rockingchair Lane (GPINs
2404371630; 2404573796; 2404564943). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
This application was indefinitely deferred last by the City Council on March 23,
2004 under the provisions of the Interim AICUZ Guidelines to provide time for the
adoption of ordinance amendments pertaining to the Joint Land Use Study
(JLUS), which occurred on December 20,2005. The application was deferred
once again on March 28, 2006. The applicant recently submitted a letter
requesting that this item be placed on the June 13 City Council agenda. To
provide adequate notice to the public, new public notice signs have been posted
on the site, adjacent property owners have been notified via certified mail, and
the application has been advertised in the Virginian-Pilot's Virginia Beach
Beacon.
. Considerations:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property to a Conditional R-7.5 Residential
District. The applicant proposes to develop the site with 132 single-family homes
on lots with a minimum size of 7,500 square feet.
The subject site has a total area of 112.3 acres. This total area can be broken up
into three categories.
[J Conservation Area- The Conservation Area consists of 39.5 acres. All
land within this area is below the 1 OO-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet with
the exception of a small knoll where the proposed entrance to the
subdivision is located. There are some tidal and nontidal wetlands
present in this area. This area is to be dedicated to the City for inclusion
in the West Neck Creek linear park.
ALCAR, L.L.C.
Page 2 of 3
I:) Open Space Area - The Open Space Area consists of 22.7 acres. The
majority of the land within this area is below the 1 OO-year floodplain level
of 6.25 feet and contains some areas of nontidal wetlands. The Open
Space Area contains four identified park sites, the largest being 37,500
square feet and the smallest being 15,000 square feet.
I:) Housing Area - The Housing Area consists of approximately 50 acres.
This includes the streets and home lots shown on the conceptual plan.
Most of this area is above the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet.
The density for this project is calculated on the combined areas of the Open
Space and Housing, which is a total of 72.7 acres. 132 units + 72.7 acres = 1.8
units to the acre. This density is below that found in the surrounding area.
The applicant has coordinated the access for the site with the planned Capital
Improvement Program projects in the area. There is no access planned from the
residential areas to the north.
It must be stressed that more than half of the site is below the 100-year
floodplain elevation of 6.25 feet and there are extensive areas of nontidal
wetlands on the site. The significant land disturbance associated with a
conventional single-family subdivision will impact these areas even with the best
site development measures employed. It must, therefore, be understood that the
low elevation of the overall site combined with its natural resource characteristics
are cause for concern, particularly regarding the subject of stormwater drainage.
The applicant will, no doubt, encounter significant issues during review of plans
for stormwater drainage. It is likely that the proffered plan may need adjustment
and the number of lots may decrease in order to provide an adequate stormwater
system that not only serves this site but also integrates well with surrounding
sites.
An additional issue to be considered in the evaluation of this request is the fact
that the majority of the site is located within the 65 to 70 dB Ldn AICUZ and a
smaller portion is within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ. Residential uses are
designated as being not compatible within those AICUZ. Section 1804 of the
AICUZ Ordinance, adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005, notes the
following regarding the evaluation of rezoning applications within any AICUZ over
70 dB Ldn:
It shall be the policy of the city council that no application . . . shall be
approved unless the uses are designated as compatible under Table 1
below and, if applicable, Table 2, unless the city council finds that no
reasonable use designated as compatible under the applicable table or
tables can be made of the property. In such cases, the city council shall . .
. approve the proposed use of property at the least density and intensity of
development that is reasonable.
Staff concludes that there are no "reasonable" uses listed in Table 1 for the
property, as compatible uses consist of retail, light industrial, offices, recreational
ALCAR, L.L.C.
Page 3 of 3
uses, and agricultural uses. These uses are either incompatible with the
surrounding land uses or not economically feasible due to the location and size
of the site. In addition, staff investigated the feasibility of using this property as a
wetlands mitigation bank and found it to be infeasible. Based on the location of
residential use adjacent to or in close proximity to the site, residential use is the
most "reasonable" use. This parcel is the final 'infill' site in this vicinity, as the
remaining undeveloped parcels are severely constrained by wetland and
floodplain.
There was opposition to the request.
. Alternatives:
The City Council has the following alternative courses of action pertaining to this
request:
1. The City Council may, if it desires, approve this application as proffered,
allowing development to proceed through the normal permitting and
construction process;
2. The City Council may, if it desires, defer this application once again either
indefinitely or to a certain date. Additionally, should the City Council
- pursue this alternative, the Council may elect to direct the applicant to
reduce the density to one unit per acre, which is equivalent to the density
allowed with the existing AG Agriculture zoning and is consistent with the
footnote provisions of Table 2 of the OPNAV AICUZlAPZ Instructions for
the 65 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ; or
3. The City Council may, if it desires, deny this application.
4. The Council may defer this item and request the applicant to return with a
revised application limiting development to the 65-70 dB area.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to
approve this request as proffered.
. Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department.
Recommendation: Planning Department recommends approval of alternative 4 above.
Planning Commission recommends approval.
City Manager: ~4A<% k- %~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF
ALCAR, L . L . C . FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AND AG-2
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO CONDITIONAL R-7.5
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF THE NIMMO PARKWAY RIGHT-
OF-WAY (UNIMPROVED) , 910 FEET WEST OF
ROCKINGCHAIR LANE (GPINS 2404337163;
2404573796; 2404564943)
WHEREAS, ALCAR, L.L.C. (hereinafter the "Applicant) has
12 made application to the City Council for a change of zoning
13 district classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District
14 to Conditional R-7 . 5 Residential District (hereinafter "the
15 Application") on certain property located on the north side of
16 the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way (unimproved), 910 feet west of
17 Rockingchair Lane (GPINs 2404337163; 2404573796; 2404564943), in
18 the Princess Anne District (hereinafter the "Property"); and
19 WHEREAS, a portion of the Property is located with the 70-
20 75 dB DNL Noise Zone; and
21
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1804 of the City Zoning
22 Ordinance, it is the policy of the City Council that no
23 application for a change of zoning of property within the 70-75
24 dB DNL Noise Zone shall be approved unless the uses and
25 structures contemplated by the application are designated as
26 "Compatible" under Table 1 of City Zoning Ordinance Section
27 1804 (b), unless the City Council finds that no reasonable use
28 designated as "Compatible" can be made of the property, and that
29 in such cases, the City Council shall approve the proposed use
30 at the least density or intensity that is reasonable;
31
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
32 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
33 That the City Council hereby finds that:
34
1.
No reasonable use designated as "Compatible" under
35
Table 1 of City Zoning Ordinance Section 1804 (b) can
36
be made of the Property; and
37
2 .
The proposed density of development within the 70-75
38
dB DNL Noise Zone contemplated by the Application is
39
the lowest density that is reasonable under the facts
40
and circumstances of the application.
41
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
42 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:
43
That the Application is hereby approved, subject to the
44 terms and conditions set forth in the Conditional Zoning
45 Agreement dated March I, 2006, which Agreement was exhibited to
46 the City Council this date.
47 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on the
48
day of
, 2006.
CA-I0059
OID\Land Use\Ordres\ALCARord.doc
R-l
June 7, 2006
2
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
~ f:, '1.~'
Planni~Department
~I!l~
City Attorney's Office
3
ALCAR LLC I
I
Original: September 10, 2003
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council
General Information:
REQUEST:
Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1/AG-2 Agricultural
District to Conditional R-7.5 Residential District
ADDRESS:
North side of proposed Nimmo Parkway, 910 feet west of Rockingchair
Lane
Map J-11
Mop Not to Scolc
ALCAR, LLC
/~ II ~ II IV /Lu~'?ff-!~ ~~li
SOUTHEASTERN PARKWAY (p_d) ~~ . /j I N I 6l
I I \ ll..flo : I I I I
( R I. \..c ~ I I I liiiPi '7... \ /I l;.; R 10 Ll ,k;ID / \.. l R 10 rlN~1 j"Y)
\U 1 ~ (7'> '~~rfJD JJ Ii ~ lOP) I- T '~L .1 I I \' -t I\:: \ \--}"'~
-t / X, '" J.V f:J l...J ~ }nr"P\\ ' _~ ~ ~
:,( ~'<. J:j ~~' pr>:f,S AEl \'" \ I......J....< -K I 11'1'1"
l l;f =:llOif Y).,~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ I '. I
~~~~~ U
'\VV ' t ~ t---
/f-:(
l0fh-\
'R"t.S "
~;;~~~ ~ .
~.. .. == I e
L':;/ ~~~~
~, 'j<<' '\" AG-( ~:[ ~ ~~
r::t.~, ...' ~ '.'. .'.. NIMMO pARKWAY PRfNC~~S _ -'::"-l"; A1Grt-J. J-{1-:-~
~~.. --)'>:'";'7''' \(:'~::::-:"'-\';"~'f~ ~111\ . ~ r. . / -;m
~:-':~:z.;: _:,::;~. \ .<~.:~~~j l ~ 7' ~ \\.. ~::- '_. /)' -;; / '
.~ ) c\~<(~~~~:~<>::-:::~?;;u.L:H .::.1 ~.i:~l\~ :~v ~ 1!/'~~f#
_' (./ '\' \ (:..:':.~-'''... ",':' ,': ~, )0.;; =;:;< '.1.= C(1 T-I '--i- I""r/--_v "
Gpin 2404-57-3796 - 56-4943
GPIN:
2404371630
2404573796
2404564943
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 1
ELECTION
DISTRICT:
7 - PRINCESS ANNE
SITE SIZE:
112.3 acres
PURPOSE:
To rezone the property in order to develop a neighborhood of 132 single-
family homes on 7,500 square foot lots,
APPLICATION
HISTORY:
This application was deferred at the August 13, 2003 Planning
Commission hearing at the request of the applicant. On September 10,
2003, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to the
City Council. On March 23, 2004, consistent with the Interim AICUZ
Guidelines then in place, the City Council voted to indefinitely defer the
application in order to allow completion of the Joint Land Use Study
(JLUS).
Major Issues:
· More than half of the land on the site, or 62.2 acres, is below the elevation of
the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet. Land disturbance and fill are
restricted in this area by the City's development ordinances.
· Consistency of the proposal with the land use recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
· There are two roadway projects planned for roads adjacent to this site,
Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A (CIP 2-121) and Seaboard Road (CIP 2-107).
Coordination and impacts on the
roadway projects are concerns.
Land Use, Zoning, and Site
Characteristics:
Existing Land Use and Zonina
The property is currently vacant and is zoned
AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District.
Extensive areas of floodplain and wetlands
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 2
are interspersed throughout the site, More than half of the site, or 62.2 acres, is below
the elevation of the 1 OO-year flood level of 6.25 feet. There are three general categories
of wetlands present on this site. The first are tidal wetlands as defined in the City
Zoning Ordinance. These wetlands are immediately adjacent to the flood way of West
Neck Creek. The second category is nontidal wetlands as defined by the Southem
Watersheds Management Ordinance and the City Zoning Ordinance. These wetlands
are present on the site for a distance of approximately 800 feet east of the floodway of
West Neck Creek and also along the edge of the stream that traverses through the
southeast portion of the site. The third category consists of nontidal wetlands under the
jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and identified as "Isolated/Headwater
Wetlands" (I/H wetlands). Most of these areas are at the edge of the floodplain and on
the higher ground proposed for home lots.
The site was logged in 2000 and 2001. Mature trees were removed from the majority of
the site, Some mature trees were left remaining in the I/H wetland areas, areas
bordering West Neck Creek and a 40 to 50 foot area of trees bordering the
neighborhoods of Castleton and Pine Ridge, along the northern boundary of the site.
The native vegetation that is currently growing on the site has an average height of 4 to
5 feet at this time.
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning
North:
. Single-family homes / R-10 (OP) Residential
District
. Proposed Nimmo Parkway right-of-way
. Single-family homes / R-5D Residential District
. West Neck Creek / AG-1Agricultural District
South:
East:
West:
Zonina and Land Use Statistics
With Existing
Zoning:
Uses consistent with the underlying_agricultural zoning
on this site, such as a plant nursery or wetlands bank.
With
Proposed
Zoning:
Approximately 132 single-family homes as shown on
the proffered conceptual subdivision plan associated
with this request. The number of homes is
approximate and may be less than 132 when the
subdivision plan is reviewed in detail for stormwater
management, utility services, etc.
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 3
Zonina History
The neighborhoods to the north of this site, Pine Ridge and Hunt Club Forest, were
zoned and developed for residential use during the 1970s and 1980s. The
neighborhood of Castleton north of the site was developed for residential use more
recently during the 1990s. The most recent residential rezoning in this area occurred
south of the site, on the west side of Seaboard Road in 1999. This neighborhood is
known as Princess Anne Woods.
On the subject site, a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 to R-10 Residential District and a
Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion for 255 single-family homes was
denied by City Council on September 26, 2000. The subject request is similar to the
2000 request, except that the number of home sites has been reduced to 132 and there
is far less fill and disturbance of the floodplain on the present plan.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ)
The northern portion of the subject site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dS Ldn surrounding
NAS Oceana. The southern portion of the site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dS Ldn
surrounding NAS Oceana. A copy of a letter from 2003 noting the Navy's position on
this rezoning is provided at the end of this report (2006 communication with the Navy
indicates that the position stated in the letter remains, as residential uses is designated
as being-incompatible with the OPNA V Instruction).
Public Facilities and Services
Water and Sewer
There is a 30-inch force main in the Nimmo Parkway right-of-way fronting the southeast
portion of the property. There is a 16-inch water main in the Nimmo Parkway right-of-
way fronting the southeast portion of the property. This subdivision must connect to
City water. Hydraulic analysis, fire demand requirements, and plans and bonds are
required for the construction of the water system.
City gravity sewer is not available to this development. Plans and bonds are required
for the construction of a new pump station (off-site) and sewer system.
Transportation
Master Transportation Plan (MTP) I Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
The subject site does not have access to an improved public right-of-way at this
time. The right-of-way for the proposed Nimmo Parkway borders the site on the
south, and the applicant has proffered to construct two lanes of this roadway from its
current terminus near the Fire Station/Library/Recreation Center complex to the new
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 4
subdivision entrance. Public Works has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study regarding
this proposal and concurs that this is the most prudent way for this subdivision to
gain access to surrounding roadways.
There are two roadway projects in the vicinity of this subdivision as noted below.
NIMMO PARKWAY PHASE V-A CIP 2-121
This project is for construction of a four-lane divided roadway on a six-lane right-of-
way, with a bikepath, from Holland Road at Kellam High School to that part of
Nimmo Parkway Phase V previously constructed to provide access to the Princess
Anne Community Recreation Center from General Booth Boulevard. The estimated
start of construction is June 2010 and estimated completion date is June 2012.
SEABOARD ROAD CIP 2-107
This project is for the construction of a three-lane undivided highway from Princess
Anne Road to Nimmo Parkway, a distance of approximately 3,200 feet. This project
will also include an upgrade of the intersection of Princess Anne Road and
Seaboard Road to include a new traffic signal. Additional funding was added for the
interim cost participation project to realign the intersection at Princess Anne Road.
The estimated start of construction is July 2008 and the completion date is July
2009,
Traffic Calculations:
This development is expected to generate 1,366 vehicle trips per day.
Schools
The chart below indicates that Kellam High School is currently over capacity. The
information provided below does not take into account the potential impacts of other
proposals pending or under construction that could affect the same schools.
School Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2
Enrollment
Princess Anne 572 664 46 46
Elementary
Corporate Landing 1,541 1,619 24 24
Middle School
Kellam High 2,388 1,798 32 32
School
1
"generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the school
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 5
"change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under
the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students).
Public Safety
Police:
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the
Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime
prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as
they pertain to this site.
Fire and
Rescue:
No comments at this time. Fire requirements will be reviewed
during detailed subdivision construction plan review.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this site as being within the Primary
Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-
residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary of Proposal
Proposal
· The subject site has a total area of 112.3 acres. This total area can be broken up
into three categories.
· Conservation Area- The Conservation Area consists of 39.5 acres. All land
within this area is below the 1 DO-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet with the
exception of a small knoll where the proposed entrance to the subdivision is
located. There are some tidal and nontidal wetlands present in this area. This
area is to be dedicated to the City for inclusion in the West Neck Creek linear
park.
· Open Space Area - The Open Space Area consists of 22.7 acres. The majority
of the land within this area is below the 1 DO-year floodplain level of 6.25 feet and
contains some areas of nontidal wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Army
Corps of Engineers. The Open Space Area contains four identified park sites,
the largest being 37,500 square feet and the smallest being 15,000 square feet.
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 6
. Housina Area - The Housing Area consists of approximately 50 acres. This
includes the streets and home lots shown on the conceptual plan. Most of this
area is above the 100 year floodplain level of 6.25 feet. There are some pockets
of I/H wetlands that will be impacted by home construction. This area can best
be described as three islands of high ground connected by roadways that
traverse the lower floodplain and wetland areas.
. The density for this project is calculated on the combined areas of the Open Space
and Housing, which is a total of 72.7 acres. 132 units + 72.7 acres = 1.8 units to the
acre.
Site Desian
. The conceptual subdivision plan shows one main entrance to the subdivision from
Nimmo Parkway. The roadway extends northward, crosses a stream, enters the
Housing Area and then comes to an intersection, where the road splits to the east
and northwest.
. The southeast portion of the site, where the stream is located, is designated as a
Conservation Area. The roadway travels through this Conservation Area for a
distance of 900 feet before it reaches the Housing Area.
~""'~"-"-~
f5.
'It6"""'T_IlIllt!IIICrt"""
~~~
=~~
~~4ll.
~~.~,"?~
~ ',-~-
U -,,,"0,,-
,,,/ ~.::::;:;;"
~=~/ ~~:(~).:
-....- --.rlll'<lll'~__/...~~
j,.'"!:~UQ~""" \\
(""~f#!J \t
W,."...-L:L
c;otlCEPTUAl. S}f
'"
NIMMO=
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 7
· The roadway crosses the floodplain/wetland areas in four locations. At each of
these locations, the construction of the roadway will require fill within the floodplain,
· There is also some fill proposed within the floodplain along the edges of some of the
home lots.
· The applicant submitted a conceptual floodplain fill plan to the Development
Services Center (DSC). It has been determined by the DSC that this project falls
under the criteria for administrative review of fill. A conceptual floodplain mitigation
plan was also submitted and reviewed in accordance with the same criteria. The
final approval for fill within the floodplain will depend on detailed engineering design.
New information and facts may alter the expectations of the .developer and may
ultimately reduce the number of home sites allowed.
· The minimum size for the home lots is shown as 7,500 square feet. Most of the lots
on the plan are uniform; there is very little variation from this minimum lot size.
· Most of the home lots back up to the Open Space Area or stormwater management
ponds, except for those along the northern boundary of the site. These home lots
are directly adjacent to existing home lots in Castleton and Pine Ridge.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
· Currently, the subject site has no direct access to an improved public right-of-way.
There is a dirt road on the south side of proposed Nimmo Parkway that connects to
Seaboard Road and travels through this site.
· A traffic impact study was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by Public Works.
The Department of Public Works concurs with the study's recommendation that
access to the subdivision be provided by Nimmo Parkway. The applicant is
proffering to construct two lanes of Nimmo Parkway within the existing public 'right-
of-way for a distance of approximately 2,500 feet. The roadway would be built from
the ~ubdivision entrance east to the current terminus of the roadway near the
Princess Anne Recreation Center.
· The section of Nimmo Parkway to be built by the developer would not connect to
Seaboard Road. The Department of Public Works does not recommend subdivision
access to Seaboard Road until the planned roadway improvements are constructed
along Seaboard Road to Princess Anne Road with CIP 2-107 (described earlier in
this report),
· When the two lanes of Nimmo Parkway are built, there will be a new intersection
created at Rockingchair Lane, approximately 910 feet to the east of the new
subdivision's entrance. Improvements and traffic movement control will be required
for this intersection. Residents of Southgate and Hunt Club Forest will have access
to the new two-lane section of Nimmo Parkway in addition to the residents of the
proposed subdivision.
. The proposed subdivision roadway connection to existing Nimmo Parkway will
impact the traffic signal operation and timings at the intersection of Nimmo Parkway
and General Booth Boulevard, and the developer will be responsible for working out
new traffic signal timings.
. A temporary emergency fire station traffic signal may be required in front of the
General Booth Fire Station on Nimmo Parkway. The developer will be responsible
for working with the City regarding design, construction and costs associated with
the installation of this signal.
. The subdivision entrance road has been located to accommodate the preliminary
designs for Seaboard Road and Nimmo Parkway. Additional coordination with these
two CIP projects will be necessary during the detailed engineering phases of the
projects.
. It sh~uld be noted that the proposed subdivision will have only one access point and
will not have any connections to neighboring properties.
Architectural Desian
. A mixture of one-story and two-story dwellings is planned. The applicant has
proffered four architectural styles and a minimum square footage for the homes. In
addition, it has been proffered that all homes will have a two car garage.
Landscape and Open Space
. The conceptual subdivision plan shows a 39.5 acre Conservation Area to be
dedicated to the City as part of the West Neck Creek linear park. The subdivision
entrance road traverses this Conservation Area in the southeastern portion of the
site. It should also be noted that preliminary design plans for the Seaboard Road
and Nimmo Parkway CIP projects show drainage outfalls at the stream located in
the southeastern portion of the Conservation Area. It is likely that the proposed
subdivision will also have drainage outfalls in this area, although no detailed
engineering for stormwater management for the proposed subdivision has been
conducted.
. The conceptual subdivision plan shows the Open Space Area to be dedicated and
maintained by the Homeowner's Association. This area is below the 1 DO-year
floodplain elevation of 6,25 feet and contains pockets of nontidal wetlands regulated
~,,\to1\A.ai'..4
~~o/:";.'~~-~Io$t.'l
" '~I!;.,.-t
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting t1([!S~L.~
ALCAR LLC ,.~-_.~, 0'"
"~'-::".~'- ", l.)
, \~:_.~;,~""", ,>'"J
Page 9 ~:::;r
by the Army Corps of Engineers.
· The applicant submitted an application for a permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers for the impacted I/H wetlands associated with this project. This
application is currently under review by the Army Corps of Engineers. The permit
application shows that there will be some on-site mitigation to create new nontidal
wetland areas for those being impacted by the roadway and home construction.
These areas of new wetlands are identified as "wetland mitigation" on the conceptual
subdivision plan.
· The Open Space Area contains four designated park sites totaling 2.4 acres. Three
of the four park sites can be accessed from the main roadway. The fourth park site,
adjacent to the northern boundary of the property in the western portion of the site is
not accessible as shown on the conceptual plan due to the -fact that it is surrounded
by I/H wetlands that are designated to remain.
Proffers
PROFFER # 1
PROFFER # 2
PROFFER # 3
When development takes place upon that portion of the
Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single
family residential community substantially in conformance
with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION
PLAN OF NIMMOS QUAY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA",
dated December 12, 2002, prepared by Clark-Nexsen,
which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City
Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department
of Planning ("Concept Plan").
When the Property is developed, approximately 22.7 acres
of parklands, lakes and recreation areas designated "Open
Space" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to and
maintained by the Property Owners Association. When
the Property is developed, playground equipment and
neighborhood park improvements meeting the City's
Department of Parks and Recreation Standards shall be
installed in the four (4) areas designated "PARK" on the
Concept Plan.
When the Property is developed, approximately 39.5 acres
of land designated as "Conservation Area" on the Concept
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 10
PROFFER # 4
PROFFER # 5
PROFFER # 6
PROFFER # 7
PROFFER # 8
Plan shall be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for
inclusion in the West Neck Creek Linear Park.
When the Property is subdivided, it shall be subject to a
recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a
Homeowners Association, which shall, among other
things, maintain the Open Space areas.
All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall
incorporate architectural features, design elements and
high quality building materials substantially similar in
quality to those depicted on the four (4) photographs
labeled "Typical Home Elevations at NIMMOS QUAY"
dated December 12, 2002 which have been exhibited to
the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the
Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Anyone story
dwelling shall contain no less than 2500 square feet of
enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-
story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet
of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The front
yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed
Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a
minimum, at two (2) car garage.
When the Property is developed, the party of the First Part
shall construct a two lane section of Nimmo Parkway
Phase V-A CIP 2-121 in accordance with the Virginia
Department of Transportation's engineering standards for
the roadway, within the existing Nimmo Parkway public
right-of-way extending east approximately 2,560:t feet from
the entrance to the subdivision to connect with the existing
improved Nimmo Parkway section.
When the Property is developed, the party of the first part
shall extend public utilities, to serve the subdivision,
including the possible construction of an off-site sewage
pump station.
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during
detailed Site plan and/or Subdivision review and
administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant city
agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code
~\~~c
'"~"""I-''''''l-
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting [~~.;~.y J.'~.))~
ALCAR, LLC \\~ - .1/1
Page 11 ~
requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-7.S
Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations
applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this
Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference
incorporated herein.
Staff Evaluation: The proffers are acceptable.
City Attorney's
Office:
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer
agreement dated March 1, 2006, and found it to be legally
sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
Evaluation of Request
The request for a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-7.5
Residential District is acceptable, but with a caveat. Staff notes that the density of the
proposed project (1.8 units per acre) is below that found in the surrounding area and
that applicant has coordinated the access plan with the adjacent roadway projects and
has limited the proposed floodplain fill to the roadways and edges of the lots. In sum,
the applicant has proffered a plan that minimally meets the intent of the various
development ordinances of the City. It must be stressed, however, that more than half
of the site is below the 1 OO-year floodplain elevation of 6.25 feet and there are extensive
areas of nontidal wetlands on the site. The significant land disturbance associated with
a conventional single-family subdivision will impact these areas even with the best
measures employed in an attempt not to.
A second issue concems the fact that the majority of the site is located within the 65 to
70 dB Ldn AICUZ and a smaller portion is within the 70 to 75 dB Ldn AICUZ.
Residential uses are designated as being not compatible within those AICUZ. Section
1804 of the AICUZ Ordinance, adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005,
notes the following regarding the evaluation of rezoning applications within any AICUZ
over 70 dB Ldn:
It shall be the policy of the city council that no application. . . shall be approved
unless the uses are designated as compatible under Table 1 below and, if
applicable, Table 2, unless the city council finds that no reasonable use
designated as compatible under the applicable table or tables can be made of
l~lA.B~
ci'~t~~'"~~~~
~P?r~, . ".i~~
\~~.'" ));
\.{:~~~;;.. 'i
-~
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR,LLC
Page 12
the property. In such cases, the city council shall. . . approve the proposed use
of property at the least density and intensity of development that is reasonable.
Staff concludes that there are no "reasonable" uses listed in Table 1 for the property, as
compatible uses consist of retail, light industrial, offices, recreational uses, and
agricultural uses. These uses are either incompatible with the surrounding land uses or
not economically feasible due to the location and size of the site. Based on the location
of residential use adjacent to or in close proximity to the site, residential use is the most
"reasonable" use. This parcel is the final 'infill' site in this vicinity, as the remaining
undeveloped parcels are severely constrained by wetland and floodplain.
A "reasonable" density in this case is one that serves as a transition from the 5,000
square foot lots to the east and the 10,000 square feet lots to the north and south, Thus,
lots at 7,500 square feet are appropriate and reasonable. It must be stressed, however,
that the density of this project, due to the amount of open space being provided, is at
1.8 units per acre, which is below the density of surrounding residential developments.
The proposed density, therefore, is certainly 'reasonable.'
Staff can support this request; however, that support comes with the caveat that it must
be understood that the low elevation of the overall site combined with its natural
resource characteristics, as described above, are pause for concern, particularly
regarding the subject of stormwater drainage. The applicant will, no doubt, encounter
significant issues during review of plans for stormwater drainage. It is likely that the
proffered plan may need adjustment and the number of lots may decrease in order to
provide an adequate stormwater system that not only serves this site but also integrates
well with surrounding sites.
NOTE:
Further conditions may be required during the
administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans
submitted with this rezoning application may require
revision during detailed site plan review to meet all
applicable City Codes.
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 13
2: V::I:liI I
~Hnz~i
U ii
'>
------- '>
-.----
i
i
~ i
i~~
,~!
n,t
?
U',
--
~ !
. ~
~ = ~
HU~~ ~h~
i:itf!al~~:
~
t
t ~
I ~
,~ f
~H
it t
+~ ~
s~ -
~! ~
- ~i ~ I
~E ~ :1<
j ;
tA ~
!~ (
i~ i
@~ ~
e~ ~
t1q
~ff~a
! n!
I t1i i
, i lid!
~ i. to
i I ~i E~
! S ~'~t ..._.....-....---
, \ \' --\------ .--"
~.. ---\- \ .. _I:.~<.'-
~ \.~-=--:;/ :~~~---
k~~...-: -"<..'-">.--
~.~ - ~~..-s
~. .,..."" I ~!~~~
~~"t ! ~~.J!!
? J
~
.S
< ~
t !
B t
~, ;
n~
t t l
n~
. lB..........
' ':':
: .(
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR,LLC
Page 14
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 15
Typical Home Elevation
at Nimmo's Quay
12112102
Typical Home Elevation
at Nimmo's Quay
12112102
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR,LLC
Page 16
Typical Home Elevation
at Nlmmds Quay
12/12102
Typical Home Eievatior
at Nimmo's Quav
12/12102 .
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR, LLC
Page 17
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA
1750 TOMCAT BOULEVARD
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23460-2.
~ .,
It:.L.ffl:PL Y REFER TO:
"""
5726
''';.~~~~ 32/0222
()~ ~:r'June 5, 2003
Ms. Barbara Duke
Planning Department
City of Virginia Beach
Building 2, Room 100
2405 Courthouse Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Dear Ms. Duke:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rezoning
request by ALCAR LLC, for the proposed construction of 138
homes. The site is located in the 65-70 decibel (dB) day-night
average (Ldn) noise zone. The Navy's Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones Program states that residential land use is
incompatible in this zone.
-
The Navy acknowledges the landowner's desire to develop
their property, but I urge you to deny their request. We would
view residential development at this site as an encroachment
upon operations at Naval Air Station Oceana. If you have any
questions, please contact my Community Planning Liaison Officer,
Mr. Ray Firenze at {757} 433-3158.
Sincerely and very respectfully,
Copy to:
COMNAVREG MIDLANT
Mayor Meyera Oberndorf
Virginia Beach City Council
Virginia Beach Planning Commission
REVISED for March 28, 2006 City Council Meeting
ALCAR,LLC
Page 18
II DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
II
APPLICANT DISCLOSURE
If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated
organization, complete the following:
1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees,
partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
ALCAR, L.L.C.: Alan S. Resh, Member; Carmine Pisapia, Member
2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entiti
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
o Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or
other unincorporated organization.
- PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE
Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant.
If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other
unincorporated organization, complete the following:
1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members,
trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary)
Jamast, Inc.: Carmine Pisapia, President; Alan Resh, Vice
President/Secretary fT reasurer
2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entiti
relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary)
o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,
or other unincorporated organization.
1 2
& See next page for footnotes
Conditional Rezoning Application
Page 11 of12
Revised 9/1/2004
z
o
I I
~
c: :)
I I
~
r"1
ea
C-::)
z
I I
Z
o
~-J
ga
~
o
I I
E-c
I I
~
Z
o
u
z
o
I I
~
C ')
I I
~
,....
ea
t..:::)
z
I I
Z
o
~-J
ga
~
o
I I
E-t
I I
~
Z
o
c ')
II
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT II
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES
List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect
to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural
services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal
services: (Attach list if necessary)
Clark-Nexsen Engineers
Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C.
American Law Offices, P.C.
BB&T.'
Stokes Environmental
Intermodal Engineering
1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one
corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the
voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of
Interest~ Act, Va. Code S 2.2-3101.
2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than
parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a
controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in
one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared
management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be
considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship
include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two
entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share
the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or
personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship
between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.
Code & 2.2-3101.
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate.
I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been
scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required
sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing
according to the instructions in this package.
ALCAR~L . i:?)
By: '>L AlanS. Resh, Member
APPlica~nt's i n::l -_ Print Name
Jamast, . .
By: Alan S. Resh, Vice President
Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name
Conditional Rezoning Application
Page 12 of 12
Revised 9/1/2004
Item #4 & 5
A1car, L.L.c.
Change of Zoning District Classification
Conditional Use Permit
North side of Nimmo Parkway
District 7
Princess Anne
August 13,2003
DEFERRED
Ronald Ripley: Our first order of business as lan pointed out to you is to consider any
items to be deferred or withdrawn. If you have an item that you wish.for us to consider to
withdrawing or deferring, please come forward. State your name. Give us the item
number please.
Eddie Bourdon: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach
attorney and I request on behalf of A1car, Inc. on cases four and five that this matter be
deferred. We were frankly caught off guard by the staff comments and would like to
have some additional time to discuss this application with the staff.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Anybody have any objection to deferring Items
four and five? Thank you. Okay, so I'd like a motion please from someone here on the
Commission to defer items #4 & 5. We have a motion by Don Horsley and a second by
Dot Wood. Mr. Miller?
Robert Miller: I need to abstain from items #4 & 5. My firm is working on those
projects.
Ronald Ripley: So noted. Is there any other discussion? Let's call for the question
please.
ANDERSON
CRABTREE
DIN
HORSLEY
KA TSIAS
KNIGHT
MILLER
RIPLEY
SALLE'
STRANGE
WOOD
AYE 10
NAY 0
ABSENT 0
ABSl
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
ABS
AYE
AYE
AYE
AYE
Ronald Ripley: Bya vote of 10-0 the motion passes with the abstention so noted.
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Change of Zoning District Classification
Conditional Use Permit
North side of Nimmo Parkway
District 7
Princess Anne
September 10, 2003
REGULAR
Robert Miller: The next item is Item #19 & 20, Alcar, L.L.c.
Eddie Bourdon: Sorry to block your views.
Ronald Ripley: We get signals from staff. I'mjust kidding.
Eddie Bourdon: This one is going to be flipped over. For the record, my name is Eddie
Bourdon and it is my pleasure to come before you this afternoon representing the
application of Nimmos Quay. Mr. Resh is here as well as Joe Bushey, from Clark
Nexsen who are the engineers working on this project. Mr. Resh and I have been
working on this project now for about a year. My history with this particular property
goes back_to 1997, which I'll get into in a few minutes. We've had a very positive
process that we've gone through with staff. I want to thank Barbara Duke who I
understand is sick. I think someone gave her some bad food on her birthday but she
worked very hard with us as with the rest of the staff including the folks in Traffic
Engineering. This is a proposal on a 112-acre parcel of which approximately 73 acres are
developable acres. To create a very high end subdivision of 132 lots, probably a few less
than that. These houses, we proffered the type of houses that will be built. They will be
very attractive homes that will be priced between $350,000 and up. I think the quality is
very clear and very evident. The property is located south of Castleton and south of a
section of Pine Ridge and west of Hunt Club and west of the section of South Gate.
We're surrounded both on the north and on east by residential development. To our
south is the, I guess Nimmo Parkway Phase V, I believe. I may be wrong on the phase
number.' And below Nimmo Parkway is the Princess Anne Woods subdivision. The
property, because of the way CastIeton developed, and I guess the best place to look is up
here onthe pinpoint. The property was supposed to be accessed via this roadway here
through Castleton but for reasons I won't discuss, and there are a lot of reasons, and
that's not going to happen and that can't happen and as a consequence, the property must
be accessed by Nimmo Parkway and one of the things that we've done with this
application is we've done a Traffic Impact Study, presented to the City, and this applicant
will be constructing two lanes on Nimmo Parkway to meet the standards for Nimmo
Parkway at a cost of approximately $900,000, and that will be extended from the fire
station to the property. The property itself is a series of clustered lot configurations that
are for the most part surrounded by open space. We are with this proposal only utilizing
26 percent of the land for roads and houses. Of the developable land, we're using less
than 40 percent for roads and houses. In other words, 74 percent of the site is going to
remain as open space. Over 60 percent of the developable land will be open space. And
over 100 homes will be backing up to open space. And, ladies and gentlemen, this is not
in the Transition Area. It sure as heck looks like it is a plan in the Transition Area. Now,
Item #19 & 20
A1car, L.L.c.
Page 2
the reason that I put this map up here is to show you that there is a little bit of history
behind this piece of property. Back in 1997, Taylor Farm Associates had most of the
property under contract as shown over here and they brought forth a plan to develop 230
lots on this piece of property. The property that I'm talking about is the property here.
Not every bit of what I'm talking about in this application. That application was
recommended for approval by the staff consistent by the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendation of 3.5 units per acre. The rezoning was R-lO open space and it was
recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission for approval. The Courthouse
Coalition of Civic Leagues was supporting the application, as was the Pine Ridge Civic
League, which I met with on a number of occasions at that time. And, between Planning
Commission and City Council, the applicant deferred the application. . He was working
with the Corps of Engineers and was developing Castleton at the time wanted to get all
this wetlands permits from the Corps of Engineers, which he in fact did receive and the
property is the subject of an approved wetlands disturbance permit from the Corps of
Engineers. But during that process some contractual issues arose and other things
occurred really having nothing to do with the prospects of the application being approved
at that time but the contracts fell through and so the deal at that point died. It never went
to City Council, but it was recommended for approval, by the staff and by the Planning
Commission unanimously for 230 lots. At that time the floodplain ordinance is not what
it is today, The floodplain ordinance that exists in the northern part of the city today
applied to all the city at that point and that development plan would have impacted about
30 percent of the floodplain on this site. That's flood fringe. We can talk about
floodplain if you all want but floodplain is not wet area. It's just area that stores a little
bit of water at a 100 year storm event, but it's not wetlands. It's not swamp. It's just
high land that's not high enough that is outside the floodplain. It gets wet when there's a
100-year storm event. Anyway, later in the year 2000, this property was assembled by
Clark Whitehill, and they brought forward an application for 255 units on this piece of
property, and that's what shown here. And what this is also to show is that all the ground
here are residential lots that surround this property, developed residential subdivisions
that surround this property. And, what you see here is the plan that was submitted in
2000. And, their timing was certainly not good. That's when we were dealing with the
floodingissue that existed in Castleton or were trumped up in Casth~ton and mainly they
were because of construction problems and blockage in lines but it was an issue at that
time. They had some major storm events. We also had the Lotus Creek situation going
and so floodplains were a hot button item. This 255-unit subdivision, was recommended
for approval by the Planning Commission. Staff did not recommend approval. They
thought it was too great an impact on floodplains and on wetlands and it was more
significant in terms of development than the previous application of Taylor Farm
Associates. So that application was actually denied. Now we have an application where
this applicant has done everything that he was asked to do. He went in and said okay,
I'm not going to ask for a floodplain variance to impact the floodplain more than is
permitted. There is a small amount that is permitted under our new floodplain ordinance
that only applies to this part of the city and I'm going to go and have gone to the Corps of
Engineers to modify the existing permits on this property to reduce the impact to isolated
non-tidal upland wetlands by 40 percent over what is already permitted on this property
by the Corps permit with this application. And, thus we have an application before you
for a plan that instead of looking like this plan, it looks like the one you see there, which
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 3
when you put that to everything around it, you see a few lots surrounded by a lot of green
space up against residential development all around. There are 65 lots in the adjacent
neighborhoods that abut this piece of property. Our development plan has a total of 18
lots that abut some of those lots. As a matter of fact, they abut 16 of those lots. And,
what we have done when this property was logged, and it was logged a few years ago, we
retained on the site, because knowing eventually it would be developed residentially,
believing that would be the case because that is what our Comprehensive Plan
recommends, we left a wooded buffer on the back of the property. Some of that wooded
buffer is also on the 65 lots that adjoin our piece of property. There's a 30-foot easement
between our property and that would remain. And, we intend to keep on our property
those trees that are in that buffer. Now, there may be a tree or two towards the southern
part of the property that we have to take out for drainage purposes but that's why those
trees were left. It is our intent to keep those trees on the property. I see that light blinking
and I don't know whether you all want me to. I have a lot of things to talk about on this,
but if you want to ask some questions.
Ronald Ripley: Can we handle those in questions and answers?
Eddie Bourdon: I'll try to. I'm happy to do that.
Ronald Ripley: I'm sure there are a lot of questions about this application.
Eddie Bourdon: Ijust don't know if you want me to do it that way or address them as I
go forward.
Ronald Ripley: Technically, I think that would be the appropriate way of handling it.
Eddie Bourdon: You all want to ask me some questions, I'm happy.
Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon?
Eddie Bourdon: No questions. That's good.
Ronald Ripley: No, we got questions. Mr. Miller.
Robert Miller: Obviously, I'm very familiar with this piece of land and have walked it.
Having had it timbered, it does bring some issues with regard to perhaps how that open
space is going to be handled, the part that hasn't been timbered. I don't know if that is
part of the parcel. I assume that the timbering just wasn't in these lots because it is hard
to tell exactly where it was but in that open space area is where the timbering occurred.
How is that handled? Also the other thing that I would like to have addressed is the
extension of the road, two lanes of that road. I heard how expensive it is. I also looked at
Seaboard Road and wondered if that was a point of discussion as the extension too.
Eddie Bourdon: I'll start with the last question first. It certainly was a point of
discussion, the extension of Seaboard Road. That is a project that is actually under
design and will be done by the City. The Nimmo Parkway proposal, that road is a VDOT
Item #19 & 20
A1car, L.L.c.
Page 4
project. And, the Traffic Impact Study, and frankly everyone, and I don't think there is
any disagreement at all it is that the best way to access this property, is to build two lanes
of Nimmo Parkway, which is far more expensive then extending Seaboard Road. And
the time frame of this development will be two years before these lots will be sold. The
extension of this roadway made more sense than dumping the traffic on Seaboard Road to
come into this section of Princess Anne Road that currently is under some stress, which
will go away with Nimmo Parkway or be significantly alleviated with Nimmo Parkway,
which has been held up for quite some time. But is now going forward and will be going
forward in 2008, which is the date that it's intended to be open. So, putting the traffic
onto Nimmo coming out to General Booth was clearly the best way to deal with the
subdivision. But what will happen is there will be an intersection at Seaboard Road when
Seaboard Road is punched through to it, which will be happening also by the course of
the next five years. But that project is actually in the works but it will not happen
overnight. The open space areas when the property was logged those areas that were
accessible. There is obviously open space area almost 40-acres being given to the City
on West Neck Creek, part of what the Comprehensive Plan requires, asks for, not
requires in that area that is truly low area was not logged. The other area there is some
vegetation that is growing on trees but those open space areas will generally be passive
open space areas but there are parts that are designated and those parts are all on areas
that are either outside the floodplains and some are in it but again, floodplain does not
mean that it is swamp or wet. There is a problem with perception and it's even in this
write up. There's one place where it kind of talks like these are little islands of high land
around low land. Folks, everything you see around this, all these houses, all these lots,
those are houses and lots that were built in the same floodplain. Same floodplain was
mitigated, and in this case there's minimal impact at all in any floodplain. We stayed
essentially out of the floodplain except for the roadway sections that we're mitigating 100
percent. On this case, we're talking about a total of 2.1 acres of floodplain that isn't
impacted at all, and we're mitigating with 5.1 acres of mitigation and again, with
previous plans, the one Clark Whitehill had, 36 percent impact and the one that was
before that was over 30 percent impact. So, we're totally staying out of any impacts on
floodplains even though floodplains are developable land and floodplain is land that is
frankly Ideal for recreation. Down at Munden Point Park most of that park is in
floodplain. Significant amount of parks, Red Wing Park, is in floodplain. There are lots
of parks in the city that have area within the floodplain. It's not the flood way. It's not
water flying through there, it's just that what you have is during a major storm event
there might be an inch or two of water that's there for a period of a few hours while they
drain. That's what a floodfringe and floodplain are. Our recreational areas will generally
be passive with some trails but there isn't an intention to put equipment into the park sites
for people who live in the community. And, that is not a problem. It's not going to float
away when there's a lOO-year storm event and you have an inch or two of water around
playground equipment. That's my answer.
Ronald Ripley: Charlie Salle'.
Charlie Salle': Eddie, I think you alluded to it and there is some comment in the staff
report about the storm water drainage for the area and the need to address it both here and
in the surrounding area. Can you tell us how you have done that?
Item #19 & 20
Akar, L.L.c.
Page 5
Eddie Bourdon: We understand completely what the challenges are and that's why this
development will meet those challenges. But, frankly, there are problems that are very
long ago. Lake Placid had some problems, as did Pine Ridge because they used the
wrong flood elevation. So, you got some historical issues there. The City's done a study
many years ago that recommends that there be a BMP in this area, a large one to handle.
There isn't anything at Oceana at all. All of the water flows south but the water that
flows south sheet flows through the ditches to the south. So we got a situation here
where there have been historically some problems in both Pine Ridge and Lake Placid
because back before of what our standards are today. And those are problems that with
this Castleton development and again, the biggest problem with Castleton really was
debris in the lines, because I would suggest it was well engineered, but with Castleton
there were some problems. I believe they have been totally solved. We had a very rainy
period this summer, and they haven't experienced flooding problems in Castleton. Our
stormwater does not go in that direction number one. Number two, it will all be handled
on site and then will be released using the BMPs that are now required using today's
standards. We will actually be helping the process is our opinion. And frankly back in
1997, when this was held up when the original application for Taylor Farm Associates
was going through the process, I got a number of calls during the hold up period wanting
to know why we weren't going forward because they viewed it, the people who were in
charge o(the civic league at Pine Ridge, they viewed it as being a positive. It was going
to help drainage. Clearly things that have happened since then have been done to clear
the lines, to clear the canals and the drainage has been helped and so I'm not going to
suggest that this is going to be a panacea but it is clearly going to help drainage and not
going to hurt drainage and we're using everyone. My client, our engineers, City, their
engineers, Mr. Block and everyone else are well aware of the situation that exists out
there and I think everyone is working towards solving it. I think it's been solved frankly,
but we're going to be under a microscope and we know that. We are also well aware that
there may be a few less lots than this in the end, but at this point and this is not a situation
that's been approved for a "X" number of lots. I had put in the proffers originally a
maximum of 132 lots. They asked me to take "maximum" out and I said fine because I
know we're not going up, we're only going down. If we go down, and I'm not saying
that we're going to, but I think that's a possibility. We recognize that. We are fully
aware of the challenges that this site presents, but in the big picture, and I don't want this
to be overstated, the challenges are that we're not developing like everything around us
on similar properties have developed in the past. We met and we believe totally
exceeded the requirements that the challenges that are presented to us. Ad in the end, you
also went up to a higher end product because of all the open space that you have behind
the lots. You don't have lots that back up to each other.
Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, you're not asking for any variance to create any more
buildable land.
Eddie Bourdon: That's correct.
Ronald Ripley: You're staying on the high land that exists that's receiving water now
running into the floodplain and of course you have retention that's controlling some of
that. Is that correct?
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 6
Eddie Bourdon: That's absolute. Our BMP's are on high land. You can't put a BMP in
the floodplains. So all of our storm water retention is on high land. None of our homes
are built on anything but high land. There is a total of about 10,000 square feet of area of
floodplain on this entire project that will be filled a few inches on the corners of some
lots. That is it. No houses are built anywhere in the floodplain. And, the City's
floodplain ordinance in this part of the city allows up to five percent impact and we're
about half of that, and of that, it's almost off of roads in the subdivision. I'll also tell you
on Nimmo Parkway, the amount of floodplain impact there is more than 10 times the
floodplain impact that we have and ours is minimal.
Ronald Ripley: The number that you used for improving Nimmo, is that also include the
pump station?
Eddie Bourdon: No. That's the cost of the road.
Ronald Ripley: So you have a road and a pump station?
Eddie Bourdon: The pump station will likely be on site too. We put it in the proffers
again just because we just wanted. Staff said they want to be aware. It might be offsite.
We're copfident that it will be onsite, but that's in addition to the pump station.
Ronald Ripley: Will that relieve any sewage issues in the area or is it just for this
property and future properties?
Eddie Bourdon: I'm not aware of any sewage problem or any capacity problems. I think
it's just a service this property. There really isn't anything else out there that's
developable.
Ronald Ripley: Yes. Barry Knight.
Barry Knight: I have a couple of observations. You talk about the 100-year floodplain.
That 100-year floodplain could happen back to back, but the average occurrence of this
happening is going to be once every 100 years. The floodplain elevation in that area is
6.3 fee( So, if you have 6.2 feet you're in the floodplain inches. If you have 6.4 inches,
a difference of 2 inches, you're out of it. So, I understand from where I live, and farming
all of our land down here is a whole lower than this but it is a floodplain but a floodplain
is not wet area. It's area that could wet in this 100- year storm event. I kind of want to
help you clarify that. And on the number of houses, you have 132 homes. You're asking
for a permit for 132 homes, but it's possible that when you go in for site review and
stormwater management, you could possibly end up with less than 132 homes. Would
you think that 132 homes isn't set in stone. That it could possibly be less than that,
because of those, but maybe is there any thought you may consolidate some of these lots?
Eddie Bourdon: That's a possibility. As this process goes forward, and because of the
microscope that this site is under because of the issues we talked about, we recognize that
there may be both to make sure that we more than adequately deal with these stormwater
issues and again, that's correcting other problems. We have considered that there may be
Item #19 & 20
A1car, L.L.C.
Page 7
some consolidation of some of the lots. So, there's no question in our mind that 132
represents the maximum, and the likelihood is that it will be somewhat less than that
before it's over with. And, your point about the floodplain is 6.25 feet but it's absolutely
correct. So, all we're talking about is a couple of inches of storage capacity. Not swamp
land. There are some isolated non-tidal wetlands, that are already permitted to be
impacted and were reducing that by 40 percent over that which is already permitted to be
impacted.
Ronald Ripley: Well, the biggest issue that I heard in the first application that came
through here, and the biggest concern that I think that everybody had was the drainage
that was coming out of Castleton and the adjoining neighborhoods. And, we're going to
hear from some folks out there and I'm sure that they'll testify some way or the other
about what has happened here. It is my understanding that's been greatly improved with
some retention and the system being cleaned out and some of the things you've said.
That's a real important point because it was a real big point then, if I recall, and it may
still be a big point. I'm not crossing over this. But we do have some other people to
speak.
Eddie Bourdon: In conclusion, half the density essentially of what the Comprehensive
Plan reco!lliI1ends for this area. Thank you very much for your time.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Mr. Miller.
Robert Miller: Other speakers that have signed up. Irene Duffy.
Irene Duffy: Good afternoon. I'm going to pass around two pictures to look at while I
speak. Just to clarify this is the area in question.
Ronald Ripley: Ms. Duffy?
Irene Duffy: What?
Ronald Ripley: You need to speak at the podium.
Irene Duffy: Oh, sorry. This is the area in question right here. This would be where a
part of Nimmo Quay would be to the south of Buckingham and Castleton. And this is
one of our retention ponds; our only retention pond in Buckingham. There are others in
Castleton. This is Buckingham.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you.
Irene Duffy: As I said, my name is Irene Duffy, and I'm on the Board of Directors for
Buckingham of Castleton and President of Castleton. I'm here representing Buckingham
today, which is a village adjacent to the proposed Nimmo Quay. Thank you for this
opportunity to speak this afternoon. The Village of Buckingham is opposed to the
development of this kind on the attractive land in question for the same reason you've
opposed to it approximately two half years ago. At that time, City Council heard and
Item # 19 & 20
A1car, L.L.c.
Page 8
understood our concerns regarding drainage and flooding, and turned down the requested
proposal. In addition, in a former case, the Planning Staff's recommendation to the
Commission was to deny the request. We find ourselves in the same position today. Last
month, when this application for rezoning was deferred, the Planning staff's
recommendation was for the request to be denied. We wholeheartedly agree with that
decision for the following reasons. The neighborhood we live in borders West Neck
Creek and that is our storm drainage outlet. The proposed development, Nimmo Quay,
will be directing their storm drainage water into the same creek. Weare a very wet
neighborhood. In fact, city engineers, to their credit, are still trying to workout the kinks
for the dry BMP that was proposed and dug to alleviate drainage problems that had been
overlooked by the developer. The BMP was created this past winter. The attention was
to have a dry BMP that filled up only during large events such as tropical storms or
hurricanes or otherwise. It was to be maintained by the City in the fashion of a meadow
were fescue would grow, and it would be mowed and maintained by the City. Since its
creation, it has not been mowed once for good reason. If a lawn mower were to go in
there it would never come out. It would sink into three feet of water that currently stands
where the tall wetland weeds have established themselves. It is turning into a wetland.
One might argue, well this has been a really wet year and this will never happen again.
To this person I would say we had a real wet year not more than two to three years ago
and that' s_ 50 percent of the time that I have lived here. If we were to have a serious
storm or hurricane now, as it stands, we would have some serious flooding problems.
One might argue well, this developer is different. They would do it differently. They
really know how to mitigate their rainwater. They won't make any mistakes because
they have smarter engineers. To this person, I would say all the prior engineers were
reputable and confident. None of them started out saying we really aren't able to do this
but let's do it anyway, knowing that things would go wrong. Otherwise, they would have
designed the drainage differently or not built here at all. It is foolhardy to ignore what
other professionals have experienced. All that we are asking is that the Commission pay
very close attention to where they are proposing to build and how much fill would be
brought in and where they intend the water to go. The property can be built on can be
encompassed as wetlands and floodplain. There is a huge amount of standing water on
that land. There is not two to three inches, and I invite you to go back there and look.
There are two to three feet of standing water at any given time back there in that area
where they want to build. If the water was redirected or displaced it might flood an
already existing, saturated community. Can we be certain that more development directly
abutting and adjacent to our home will not increase our propensity to flood during a
minor or major rainfall. I would like to read a quote that I found on the website
belonging to the Virginia Beach Planning Department under the heading of Flood
Control. "Wetlands provide flood control by acting as a giant sponge absorbing and
holding water during storms. Fast moving water is slowed by vegetation and temporarily
stored in wetlands. The gradual release of water released creates erosion potential and
possible property damage. When wetlands are filled, areas designed by nature to control
floodwaters from Nor'easter extreme high tides, etc, are lost." We believe it is the City's
responsibility to put the safety and welfare of its citizens above the interest of private
enterprises seeking personal profit and gain. Weare asking that the Commission give
strong consideration to the recommendation given by the City's Planning staff last
month, which brings me to a question that I need to ask. What change was made in the
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 9
application request that would warrant the change in the staff's recommendation? Since
the deferral last month, there has been a change in the recommendation made by the
Planning staff; so, I'm wondering if the development plans were redesigned or adjusted
to avoid disturbance in this environmentally sensitive area. This land is marginal at best
and building here not only threatens existing homes but is irresponsible business practice
regarding the new home owners of Nimmo Quay. And to Mr. Bourdon, I would say,
please tell my sump pump under the house that the water in the cinder block voids are
trumped up drainage problems. I thank you very much.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Ms. Duffy?
William.Din: I got a question.
Ronald Ripley: Yes.
William Din: The two pictures that you passed around shows a dry BMP. Obviously a
dry BMP is only dry in dry weather but is intended to collect water.
Irene Duffy: Well, the dry BMP intention was to be wet during large events. It was not
supposedJo be a retention pond and it was not supposed to be a retention lake. We have
one of those already.
William Din: What is your intention, and I don't understand why you're showing us a
picture of a dry BMP with water in it when it is supposed to collect water.
Irene Duffy: Well, its supposed to be dry most of the time I would assume, if it's a dry
BMP, but it has not been dry since it was done. My point is that the purpose of the dry
BMP was to retain water that was supposed to go in to the permanent retention pond. It
was supposed to be an over fill and it was supposed to happen only during large events
such as hurricanes. My point was that it is wet all the time. We have not had a hurricane
as of yet, and it already has wetland plants growing in it and it has not been maintained
by the city, because we can't grow grass. It doesn't survive because it's too wet. What
I'm saying is that if a hurricane was to happen now, or we were to have a large storm, it
would flood because that is the last action for us, that dry BMP.
William Din: And the retention pond is suppose to have water in it? Right?
Irene Duffy: Exactly.
William Din: And you're showing us that it does have water in it?
Irene Duffy: I'm showing you that it is full and that it is at the top of the drainpipe and
that is how it sits most of the time because West Neck Creek is where the outfall is for
our retention pond so when it doesn't flow it ends up backing up.
William Din: Are you having flooding in your area on the streets?
Irene Duffy: No. It's much better now. It's much better now, than it was in the
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 10
beginning. We had a lot of flooding due to, as was mentioned, the BMP system and we
haven't had a large event either so I think we're maxed out.
William Din: We've had some rain events here but during the rainy events what kind of
flooding do you encounter there?
Irene Duffy: We don't have flooding in the streets anymore. Not since they've fixed the
drainage. We do have water in our yards and in my crawl space. I use a sump pump to
get the water out of the cinder block voids that are there periodically.
William Din: Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much.
Robert Miller: JoAnn Massey.
JoAnn Massey: Good afternoon. I am here to present a petition from the Chartwell of
Castleton and Buckingham of Castleton homeowners in opposition of the rezoning. We
oppose this rezoning based on our neighborhoods flooding problems and remedies by the
City of Virginia Beach that Ms. Duffy spoke to about earlier. Castleton as a whole has
always been indated with drainage and flooding issues. We do not think it would be
prudent for the Commission to approve this rezoning and ultimate subdivision
development of the above referenced property on Items #19 & 20. The flooding and
drainage issues of Castleton, we feel would escalate as a new development in that
location would permit considerably more drainage into our already overburdened and
troublesome dry BMP and drainage system. I do have additional photos of the dry BMP,
which has never been dry ever. It's right behind my house. I've got pictures from the
very beginning up until a couple of weeks ago. It has never been dry. Here's the
petition.
Ronald Ripley: Is that a copy of the petition?
JoAnn Massey: It is original signatures.
Ronald Ripley: Do you have a copy of that?
JoAnn Massey: No, I don't.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. You may want to get a copy from staff later if you would like to
have a copy.
JoAnn Massey: Okay. Yes, I would. Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Are there any questions of Ms. Massey? Thank you very much. Will,
has a question. I'm sorry.
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.C.
Page 11
William Din: It's the same question and you're quoting that there's flooding problems
and draining problems in your neighborhood.
JoAnn Massey: Drainage problems now. Flooding problems before. The drainage
problems being that the BMP and the retention pond flowing into the West Neck Creek
which this subdivision would be draining its into West Neck Creek. West Neck Creek
backs up, the retention ponds back up, the dry BMP backs up and the dry BMP has never
been dry.
William Din: Has the dry BMP every overflowed into the neighborhood?
JoAnn Massey: The pipe is a very large drainage pipe. It's gotten to be this close to the
top of the pipe. My house is right on the edge of that pipe and the water comes right up
to my backyard. And, no it has never flooded my backyard but if we were to ever have a
hurricane it may.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much.
J oAnn Massey: Thank you.
Robert Miller: Christine Capozzohi. Forgive me if I mispronounced your last name.
Christine Capozzohi: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I'm Christine Capozzohi. I
live at 2408 Windy Pines Bend. My husband and I bought our house and property in
October 1987. Next month, it will be 16 years. We love the neighborhood. The first
thing that we noticed as we pulled into the entrance, this is a beautiful bird sanctuary.
We have signs there. We love being close enough to the ocean and yet still living in the
country with all the birds abutting our backyard. We used to have deer come up. In the
backyard, we throw out crumbs and whatever and other animals come up. We had no
problem. This was just absolutely beautiful. Now that I have brain surgery in 1997, I'm'
a shut-in. I have vision problems. I have no peripheral vision whatsoever. I can't drive.
The only thing that I have daily is to look at the backyard or maybe once in a while be
able to cross the street ifthere' s no traffic coming to walk one of my three dogs. When
this proposal first came out two years ago, you were talking about them building houses
in the woods. But before that we had drainage problems. I'm guessing about five years
ago the City came in to help with the drainage problems. There is about a 10 foot buffer
in the back of the property, which comes from the end of Windy Pines Bend to the other.
I guess I'm talking about maybe 15-18 houses and a brand new drainage system, which
helped us so much. I thank Castleton. First of all, while they were building Castleton
and they came in and they logged all the woods behind us. They left us a few little
skinny trees.
Ronald Ripley: Ms. Capozzohi, you're starting to run out of time.
Christine Capozzohi: I'm sorry. Ijust want to say that my property is not of any use to
me if they're going to go in there and build and put more houses in. If this is passed by
this board, I would like the owner of that property, or the builder to come and buy my
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 12
property from me and they can do whatever they want with that as long as I get a good
decent price for my house. I thank you all very much.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you all very much.
Robert Miller: Angela Snyder.
Angela Snyder: Hello. My name is Angela Snyder. I am a resident of Pine Ridge. This
application was deferred from the August 13th agenda, and I have the same question that
the first lady had and that I understand that from this morning staff's meeting that the
Commission now supports this application. But, what has changed since the
recommendation was for denial at the August 13th agenda? I am an adjacent property
owner and I would like to show you where my house is because it does effect this
development. Weare right about here and the back of our house will be right behind the
new development. We have terrible flooding problems. Our backyard looks like a lake
just when it rains. We're not talking about a significant event, just normal rainfall. So, I
can imagine that the new houses will have that problem as well. The Comprehensive
Plan does identify this area as a Conservation Area. It does contain tidal and non-tidal
wetlands. There will be no buffered trees for noise reduction and wildlife retention.
There will be a definite negative impact on schools and roads. It was noted in the
recommendation of the staff, that Kellam High is currently over capacity by 286 students
and that does not take into account other developments that have already been approved
and are under construction. That's a real concern. The wetlands will be negatively
affected. I heard the lady mention what I was going to quote from your website, but I
believe she has already done that about the wetlands being a sponge. I just wanted to
stress about the flooding being an issue. The stormwater drainage is very poor. The U.S.
Navy also opposed this request. They feel that it's an encroachment on their operations.
I have letters of opposition I think have been filed. We do have a petition, which has
already been submitted to you. There are 62 names on that. I do have a question of Mr.
Bourdon, and I'll be able to ask that?
Ronald Ripley: You can state it and we can ask him.
Angela Snyder: The question is I heard him say and point to this map which I could not
see from my location but there was going to be a row of buffered trees that I wondered
where that was going to be? We ask that you deny this request.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you.
Angela Snyder: Thank you.
Robert Miller: John Snyder.
John Snyder: Hello. My name is John Snyder: I've lived on Windy Pines Bend for
probably since December. Just moved there. Right there would be my house. According
to your plans, these new lots would abut to my back property line. Behind my property
line there is a drainage system that the City had installed and I'm not sure when because I
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 13
just moved there. I have a constant problem with water running off the back of these
lands onto my yard because my water is trying to go towards that property to go away
from my house and my house is flooded. The way I see it with these property lines
connecting or abutting to each other as they are in this drawing, if they properly grade the
yards of these new homes, the backyard of that house is going to be flowing right towards
the back of mine and therefore, I'm going to have more problems. All that I wanted to
say about this drain that is back there is the drain sits so far high out of the ground
because the ground is so low that when the water does gather around towards the drain, it
doesn't get high enough to go into the drain. I've had several people come out from the
City, from Public Works, and they tell me they can't access it. So, how are they going to
access this when they have these property lines connecting to mine and not only is that
drain bac;:k there that should be absorbing some of the water and I've been trying for
months to try to get my water to go towards these drains so it would be out of my yard
and away from my house and it just doesn't do it. It just stands there and goes nowhere.
Also behind my fence line is the electrical box and everything else, and Ijust don't know
how with these property lines like this, if anything happens, how are they going to access
any of these public utilities. Those are a few of my concerns. Like I said, I'm just a new
homeowner trying to keep my yard dry and at least get it running off my property and its
just running right back to my property from where it is now.
Ronald Ripley: Mr. Snyder, is there a ditch behind your property or is it a drainage pipe
that has a drop in?
John Snyder: A very large City drain with very big grates in it. I mean a small animal
can go through there. I've told my son not to mess around and get his foot caught in it or
something.
Ronald Ripley: Is it a grading issue you think to get the water to the pipe?
John Snyder: Yes. See, that is what I told the people who came out. If you all would
grade the land around there a little better, maybe it would flow into that drain. Also in
my baCKyard we have mature trees, very large mature trees. Earlier concept plans in past
years from looking through papers, City work, they left a nice buffer with those mature
trees between the neighborhoods and with the property lines connecting like that and the
utilities there and everything, I don't know how they're going to do that. It kind of
doesn't make any sense to me why they would want to connect the property lines. I
would think you would leave it zoned between there so you could access the public
utilities. I don't know whether they are planning on moving these public utilities.
Ronald Ripley: Typically, what you'll find is that there will be a City easement. You
have a City easement across the back of your property for which the City should be
maintaining that swale. It's their easement. This development will also have to dedicate
their City easements for the same reason. We'll have Mr. Bourdon address this.
John Snyder: I was just concerned on how they were going to access public utilities that
are behind my house and that's going to go between these two. I would also like to say
that we moved in there, my fourteen year old son was really looking forward to running
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 14
around through the woods back there and being a boy. He hadn't been able to go back
there. It's too muddy. He'll sink up to his knees. They ask me if I would allow them to
access that area through my yard. I said bring a tow truck because any heavy equipment
your taking through my yard is going to sink. My yard hasn't been dry since I've been
there. I have trouble just trying to mow the grass. Those are a few of my concerns.
Thank you very much for hearing them.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you for coming up.
Robert Miller: Jack Reich.
Jack Reich: How you doing? My name is Jack Reich. I live at Hunt Club Forest. My
property borders the proposed thing. When we get a rain and not even a heavy rain,
water comes up four feet. I had that creek and I guess it connects to West Neck Creek at
the edge of my backyard. It comes up four feet up from that creek into my yard. I have
an embankment. It comes up that embankment four feet. With just the rains that we've
had, I mean we haven't had, God forbid we have. It's a lot worse now since they
knocked all those trees down back there. I mean in the past, when I guess water would be
held in the woods back there. I didn't have that much of a problem other than in a
hurricane. of course you would expect it to come up. Now, with just heavy rains like
we've had. I mean I'm not exaggerating and we're talking four feet up on my property,
up the embankment. I cannot get flood insurance because the corner of my property is in
a flood zone. I won't have a house left. I have an above ground pool in my backyard. If
that water comes up any higher, it will end up taking my pool out. I mean this is just
absolutely nuts. And, they're going to drain into West Neck. It can't handle what's there
now. I just can't understand any of this and I don't want to see my property destroyed. I
probably lost, and anybody can come out and look, I probably lost two feet of my
property in the last two years at the edge. The City doesn't maintain anything. I
maintain it. I do my best to keep it up. I keep the grass cut. I keep everything back there.
Clean up the garbage that flows from other people's houses down. Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller, has a question.
Robert Miller: When you bought the house. When do you buy your house?
Jack Reich: 1987.
Robert Miller: Wasn't there a drainage easement on your property then and that canal
was there at that time?
Jack Reich: Yes sir.
Robert Miller: Okay. Since you've live there, you're telling me that Public Works have
never been out there to maintain that canal?
Jack Reich: No.
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.C.
Page 15
Robert Miller: That's something we definitely have to have our staff investigate.
Jack Reich: I take care of it.
Robert Miller: No.
Jack Reich: I have never called up and complained.
Robert Miller: I believe what you're saying, and I think that could be part of the issue if
your having water rise four feet, perhaps it's blocked up somewhere and it's not properly
draining and it's something that Public Works can get out there and do something about
it.
Jack Reich: Just since they've cleared those trees.
Robert Miller: I hear you. Thank you.
Jack Reich: You're welcome.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much.
Jack Reich: Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Do we have anybody else?
Robert Miller: Jeff Trenton.
Jeff Trenton: I've got a couple of points. The first one is goes to the credibility of the
proposal. We've talked about this buffer area. On page 11, the Planning staff says, "it
should be noted that one particular valuable aesthetic natural resource is being eliminated
with the current proposal is the existing 40 to 50 foot wooded buffer along the northern
boundary of the site adjacent to the neighborhoods of Castle ton and Pine Ridge." It kind
of contradicts what Mr. Bourdon says. I would assume the Planning Commission is
objective on this because it goes to the credibility of the proposal. The major issue I'd
like to address is has everybody seen the newspaper today? You see the newspaper
today, massive headlines "Super Hornets Coming to Virginia Beach." We got the
squadrons. Massive headline is going to be a lot louder. Headline basically today is
"Super Hornets coming to the Beach." It's big, the biggest story in this town for quite a
while. Let me suggest what tomorrow's headline can be if you make a mistake on this.
"City Council Approves Additional Residential Development Despite Navy Objections."
Navy says new development will encroach on air operations. That's your headline. I've
heard that sort of debate when I was on the Castleton Oceana Liaison Committee. The
Navy would always marvel that the city would continue to build even when the Navy was
saying that there are serious noise level issues and other issues concerning flight
operations. And they would marvel that the city could continue to do that. Now
especially today when they say we're going to get the Super Hornets. When they say
they're going to be much louder. When they say they're going to have training
Item #19 & 20
A1car, L.L.c.
Page 16
operations with new aircraft, to have additional building to approve the next day,
additional residential construction when the Navy tells you that you shouldn't be doing it,
you're going against what the Navy says, and were saying that we're a Navy town and
were patriotic. However, we're going to go for the buck and do the building. That is
what it seems to me. I guess that is all that I'm going to say.
Robert Miller: Where do you live Jeff?
Jeff Trenton: I live right there in Castleton.
Robert Miller: Can you point to it? There's a pointer right there on the table.
Ronald Ripley: The little black thing.
Jeff Trenton: I'm right here.
Robert Miller: Okay. How's your quality of life there?
Jeff Trenton: It's nice to have the woods behind.
Robert Mjl1er: A nice neighborhood?
Jeff Trenton: It's a nice neighborhood. The noise is an issue.
Robert Miller: Really.
Jeff Trenton: Especially the question of when the Super Hornets being louder. Because
we know Navy guys who fly and say yeah, the Super Hornets are going to be a lot louder.
Robert Miller: Every time you see one of those Navy guys making all that noise, why
don't you thank him for the freedoms you have. Thank you.
Jeff Trenton: The Navy is the one who's saying your encroaching on their operations.
Not me.
Robert Miller: Thank you.
Jeff Trenton: Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Is there anybody else?
Robert Miller: No sir.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. Mr. Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Where do I begin. I think you already picked up on the fact that the
BMP that is holding water is a BMP that is working given the fact that we had a record
summer for rainfall and the first young lady who spoke on it, I'll be happy and be candid
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.C.
Page 17
and say that the flooding problems are corrected. They're not flooding. Frankly,
depending upon the size of a hurricane, if we have a hurricane, there are a lot of places in
the City of Virginia Beach, a whole lot of places that are going to have flooding on a
temporary basis and for the flat area coastal plain that we live in, that's an inevitability.
There's nothing anybody can do about that if we have a hurricane. You can't design a
storm drainage system for a city based on a hurricane event. And, we haven't nor have
any other coastal cities that I'm aware of but we certainly in this case, being that we are
downstream of Castleton, we're not going to be putting water upstream. What we also
will be doing is as you all know, and as we've talked about, is our BMPs all have to be in
upland areas. They have to be designed and engineered so that we are in not any way
shape, or form increasing the rate of flow into that drainage system in a storm event.
And, again, Castleton is the latest development that had experienced some problems.
They developed, and a significant amount of their lots are in the floodplain. None of
these lots are in the floodplain. The other development, Pine Ridge specifically and Lake
Placid up the upstream, they have houses, many, many of them which were built in the
floodplain but the flood elevation used to calculate their height was too low, which is the
issue with the runoff. All of this is being addressed and has been addressed and we will
be addressing it so that we will not be adding in anyway to anybody's water problem and
that's what this plan represents, because it is such a minimal amount of development with
all of the _sponge left unimpacted. With regard to Ms. Snyder, she brought up a number
of different things. The buffer behind here, first off all, behind their houses there is a 30-
foot easement between our lots and their lots that would be maintained. We also
maintain wooded area along the entirety property line with the neighboring properties and
of that entirety, there are 65 lots that adjoin us, this is one section.
Ronald Ripley: Mr. Bourdon, you're over your time. But you're answering our
questions.
Eddie Bourdon: I knew you were going to ask that question.
Ronald Ripley: So consider your questions and answers.
Eddie Bourdon: Okay. I'll consider mine questions and answers. We got this section
here where there is a wooded buffer because it's the wooded buffer that we maintain.
There are trees on the back of these lots. If you notice, these lots are larger lots than
those in the neighborhood. There are a number of trees on these lots. There are trees on
our property all the way around. Most of our boundary with the neighboring
subdivisions, all of these lots go directly to our property line. We have left a wooded
buffer and that buffer will remain. What the staff was commenting about is that in the
255 lot plan, our lots were not to the property line but we're still going to maintain on the
back of these lots. Not 50 feet although in the case of these seven lots here to the east,
there's already 30 foot buffer that will remain and that is an underground drainage
easement and we will be able to add another 15 to 20 feet to that. So basically, about a
40 to 50 foot buffer that will occur here. This area here the buffer will be less but these
lots that we adjoin here. We have 10 lots that adjoin a total of eight above us. We'll be
probably able to leave about 20 to 30 feet of trees on our property in addition to roughly
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 18
the same amount of trees that exist on the back of those lots. Elsewhere, there is no
impact at all in terms that trees remain adjacent to the rest of the properties.
Ronald Ripley: While you're on that subject Mr. Scott, it wouldn't be appropriate for this
applicant to size the drainage pipe along those adjacent property lines to service water
coming off of Castleton for example but it would be appropriate for the city, when
they're in there doing the development to get their grades right if the grades have gotten
filled in or what not so that we get two drainage systems that are getting the water out of
there. Would that be appropriate to say?
Robert Scott: Really, you have to leave that up to the design engineer and what concept
they're going to use to drain it. It wouldn't be inappropriate to do.
Ronald Ripley: Would it be inappropriate to oversize it to take other water?
Robert Scott: It's not a question so much of oversizing as it is of grades. The problem is
the land is very low and very flat. The grading issues are most of the problems I believe.
I certainly don't want to rule anything out like that, but at some point, someone is going
to have to figure out how to drain this land and their concept might possibly include that.
Ronald Ripley: Okay.
Eddie Bourdon: You'll also notice and it's obvious to everyone, and I'm going to show
you, that there are lots all along here, lots all along here that come to our property line
and had our property line were a floodplain, what does that tell you? These lots were all
built in the floodplain. And, that's a reality. The houses of a lot of these people that
adjoin us were in the floodplain and that's not happening on our property. We're not
doing anything as far as building houses in the floodplain that exists around us. That's
the key to this whole situation is that we're not going to be creating any problems for
anybody else and our stormwater off of our impervious surfaces go into BMPs that we're
creating on our property to hold that water on our high land not in the floodplain. So
we're not affecting the flood storage capacity or the rate of flow in any way in the
floodplain.
Eugene Crabtree: I think you just answered my question. Your three stormwater
management facilities should actually improve the wetlands that is now draining to
people's property by holding it on your own property. What they say is running form the
woods now and having problems with that when you put these in that should correct
some of their problems because then it will not run there but will be held in your
stormwater management.
Eddie Bourdon: We fully believe and understand and appreciate the fact and it is a
reality given the history of these other developments that we are going to be looked upon
to not only make sure that we have no impact but to probably help to alleviate some of
the existing impacts and we are well aware of that and prepared to address that challenge.
Eugene Crabtree: That's what I was asking.
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 19
Ronald Ripley: Jan Anderson.
Janice Anderson: On the wooded buffer that you said you would leave there, that is a
drainage easement also, is there any problem with keeping it wooded? You said that you
might have to take a tree or two but it's not going to be clearer.
Eddie Bourdon: Those mature trees are the ones the owner left and didn't log when the
rest of the property was logged because they provide that buffer. The answer is I don't
believe, we hope there aren't any trees that have to be taken out. It is our desire to leave
that buffer, but maybe some that do, but they will be the ones farthest away from the
shared property line. They won't be on the shared property line. Again, unless for some
reason that we're not aware of dealing with the existing drainage improvements or the
City drainage improvements that would have to necessitate some removal. We're not
anticipating that will be the case.
Janice Anderson: Is there anywhere the proffers that you can make just say maintain the
wooded buffer. It wouldn't be specific.
Eddie Bourdon: We could between now and City Council we could put on the plans a
note about the wooded buffer that exists. That can certainly be done. In terms of the
proffers themselves, I'm not sure from what other developments such as wording that
anyone is really going to be comfortable with. Barbara is not here. Barbara Duke and I
have had discussion a lot lately. I think that she and I'll just quote her for the staff, I
think they're more comfortable with some type of a note on the plan itself as opposed to
trying to come up with words in a proffer to deal with that. I think that is an issue that we
could address by putting a note in to the proffer that trees in this area are to remain.
Janice Anderson: The wording in your proffers.
Eddie Bourdon: You're referring to the plan.
Janice Anderson: To the plan.
Ronald Ripley: Are there any other questions? Charlie Salle' and then Gene.
Eugene Crabtree: Mr. Bourdon, in reference to the gentleman that was complaining
about the aircraft, if I understand the position of this property, this property is not in the
actual major flight plan of take off or landing and the crash zone is just the noise zone.
So from a safety standpoint of view we don't have it in direct line of any of the major
runways and therefore the noise level is the only question? Am I correct?
Eddie Bourdon: That is correct.
Ronald Ripley: Charlie.
Eddie Bourdon: We left plenty of room for ajet to crash with all the open space on 74
percent of the property. I hope none ever do.
Item #19 & 20
A1car, L.L.c.
Page 20
Eugene Crabtree: Ijust want to make sure that you're not in that direct crash zone.
Eddie Bourdon: No, were not even near a crash zone. We surrounded by residential
development at three half units per acre.
Eugene Crabtree: Just clarifying it that's all.
Charlie Salle': My experience with crash zones is when an airplane flies over your head
you're in a crash zone.
Eddie Bourdon: With all this conservation area we're setting aside, there is plenty of
room and God forbid if one every came down. We hope they wouldn't come down in
any of the neighborhoods that surround us but it doesn't exist.
Charlie Salle': I had a couple of questions and Jan explored part of that on the buffer
zone, I noticed that the wooded buffed areas is across the actual platted lots and I guess to
what extent is the subject lot owner bound to keep that area wooded?
Eddie Bourdon: There certainly is an ability to put in an easement on the property. It
could be a Homeowners Association that's going to own not only all the open space and
the vast majority of our property that abuts to 65 lots in a neighborhood would belong to
the association and so there is the ability to put an easement to allow the association to
enforce not only on their own property but on the back of the 18 lots that we have that
adjoin other lots.
Charlie Salle': That might be one of the responsibilities.
Eddie Bourdon: I would agree Mr. Salle', and I don't think you would have any problem
with putting in a condition. The issue simply would be the depth of the easement on any'
of the lots.
Charlie Salle' : And the other question deals with drainage. This project is downstream
from the areas that we had people had concerns about it. Is the system of drainage
connecting the existing drainage that's will be flowing down to your project?
Eddie Bourdon: There are some drainage ways that come through and it's natural
drainage that clearly comes through here. That's what all the floodplain in these areas
that we preserved that is directly adjacent to their lots that were created in the floodplain.
That's why it is important and critical and that's why we had stayed out of those areas
with our development, so that we're not impacting the natural drainage ways with regard
to the manmade drainage ways. Yes, they do also traverse our property, and we will be
enhancing those to some degree. Primarily, we're going to make sure that we have no
negative impact on those in terms of adding in any way to flow in those drainage ways in
a storm event. We're also providing a BMP for Nimmo Parkway on some of our high
land, right out here at the entrance. Right here were adding a BMP that will be used for
Nimmo Parkway again, so there isn't any impact on the drain when that road is built. We
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 21
do have drainage that comes across the property. There's natural drainage that comes
across the property that we are not going to impact.
Ronald Ripley: Kathy and then Joe.
Kathy Katsias: Mr. Bourdon, are you and the developer is willing to reduce the amount
of lots depending on the storm water drainage system. Is there a number that would
make this economically not feasible by the production?
Eddie Bourdon: That whole issue Ms. Katsias is going to be dealt as we go through the
engineering, which is in this case and that really is the answer. I believe. I don't want to
speak for staff, but I think the staff s comfort level with this proposal was enhanced by
face to face meetings with our engineers and our clients, and we understand and have
bent over backwards already and will continue to do the same to make sure that there is
no impact on drainage on the property surrounding us. We walked into this knowing that
the problems that have existed and to some degrees still exist, although I think they have
been in a large part been solved, not totally, and we recognize that we may lose some lots
in that process. But, that's an expensive process. All that detailed engineering on
individual and grades and what have you, it's going to be a process that we're
recognizing is going to take some time. And, I said before, we don't expect any of these
houses on these lots to be on line or for sale for two years because we know that process
isn't going to be a quick one. As far as a number, no, there is no way we can sit here and
say it will be 120 versus a 132 and we're not in a position to know that at this point.
Ronald Ripley: Joe, did you have a question?
Joseph Strange: Yeah. Some of the opposition, they expressed concern that even though
your saying that these BMPs are going to be on high property that maybe this isn't going
to really work. Who do they go to and get assurances that your plan will work so they
could feel comfortable and not feel like when they walk out of here that this gets passed
that they're going to be protected.
Eddie Bourdon: I think they can walk out of here and walk out of the Council meeting,
because they will be hearing the same thing there, knowing that every engineer and
Public Works of the City is well aware, and they've been aware for a number of years
about the issues that have been brought forth and that these plans are going to be
checked, doubled checked, tripled check to make sure that they will in fact they will do
what in fact what we said they will do. They will not be adding to their burdens, so to
speak, that exist. And, the City has studied this area extensively. We're looking at
property that we are only developing on, essentially on the high land, and that's one
assurance that I would take out of here. Number two, the fact that everyone is going to
be scrutinizing it very carefully to make sure that we alleviate the problem. The
problems that have existed, have existed in large measure because of previous errors that
aren't going to be repeated again in terms of using incorrect information, in terms of what
the floodplain was back in the 60's with Lake Placid. Our knowledge is so much greater
now then it was in the 1960s.
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 22
Joseph Strange: If you look under Public Facilities and Services it says, "city water is not
available to this development. Plans and bonds are required for the construction of a new
pump station off-site of the sewer system." And then if you look at Proffer #7, "when the
property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend public utilities, to service the
subdivision, including the possible construction of an off-site sewage pump station."
How do these two relate to each other? I don't quite understand it myself.
Eddie Bourdon: I believe they say the same thing. There is City water, and City water
will be extended to the site at our cost. City sewer same thing, will be extended to our
site at our cost. The only question there is whether the pump station will be on this site or
off-site, and we are now confident that it will be on site. Like I said, it will be at our
cost. There is no cost to the taxpayer at all. City water and City sewer have to be
extended at the developer's cost to the property and they're available to the property.
Joseph Strange: So what plans and bonds are required for the construction of the new
pump station? Does the City have to do that?
Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. When this gets to subdivision approval. It just lets somebody
know, if they're a developer and they're naIve, that they're going to have bond what
they're gQing to have put that in.
Joseph Strange: So the City doesn't have anything to do with that.
Eddie Bourdon: No sir.
Joseph Strange: I didn't quite understand myself.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. Are there any other questions? Mr. Bourdon, thank you very
much.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Let's open this up for discussion. Mr. Miller.
Robert Miller: Well, since everybody else is a drainage engineer, I guess I can be one. A
couple of things that were said today that need to be clarified. Number one is that West
Neck Creek is a creek that drains a large part of our city, but it is also connected to both,
ironically, the Chesapeake Bay and to Back Bay and it is effective in both directions. It's
very unique in that sense. It's a great waterway. It's a longitudinal to the park, as we all
know. It's a wonderful place to go and spend some time. There are some issues that
come up, and that is trying to maintain it and make sure that it stays clear of debris.
Public Works, I think, has done a very good job, but over the years, it's difficult to either
stop a tree from growing, or if one fell down, to know that it fell and go out and clean that
tree up. I think that's been part of the issues that have dealt with West Neck Creek. The
creek, itself, carries a large amount of water during a rainfall event. The drainage in
Castleton, the drainage in this subdivision, to some extent, the drainage in Lake Placid
are being, what I called "detained" which means it's being slowed down and let lose after
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 23
the storm event has passed. That's the way things are engineered during computer
models, and I can assure you there have been any number of, literally hundreds of models
done on this particular creek to make sure that what is being done in this area is going to
be done correctly and done with conscience towards not only the development that's
going on but the other developments around it. Just saying that means that the storm
drainage systems have presented every confidence that the City engineers are going to
make sure and the developer's engineers together with those items that were talked about
today from yard drainage to canal system that's not quite working to worrying about how
it's going to flow into West Neck Creek. This water is already going into West Neck
Creek, and the water that will be drained from this property will not be in excess of
what's already going there. So, there's no net gain. That's part of the rules of the
development that has to occur. One lady mentioned, I think Ms. Duffy that there was
water under her house. I just want to make sure, and I think she knows this, but that is a
builder's problem. That's not related to the development. There are duct valves on the
Castleton outfall system at the primary outdoor fall for the Buckingham Village. A duct
valve actually opens when the water in the creek is lower and stays closed when the water
in the creek goes up. That was done supposedly to stop water from coming back into the
subdivision. If in fact, the water is staying in the subdivision in that storm water
management facility too long, then it may be that valve is not working. I would suggest
that Publ~c Works get involved to make sure that they get that straight. The BMP that
was supposed to be dry, but remains wet and the month of May, I think we had 20 days
of rain. We've probably had the wettest summer we've had that I could remember. And,
even though the events may look like they are not that severe, the continual rain causes
the ground to be saturated and all of us, with any sense to my yard, to your yard to
anybody else's yard know that after this summer. That would also lead to the fact that
the BMP was built dry, otherwise it wouldn't have been built. It was built and it was dry.
So, it was dry at some point. And the last thing is the canal system, I would suggest that
is on the eastern part of this property next to the Hunt Club, and it goes across the
southern portion of the property. I have walked that canal and I know that canal is
heavily encumbered with existing trees and growth and other things. And maintenance
probably does need to be run on that; so, I would ask that Public Works do that. And
stating all of that, I think the developer has done a very unique job of backing off the
previous proposals that we've seen. I believe staff believes the same, and the proposed
development is one that I personally feel has achieved what all of us were asking for, and
that is the honoring of the environmental situation, the honoring of the drainage situation.
I do like the idea of putting in the additional condition of an easement for the buffered
trees. I think that assures the people that have been here that are worried about that. Let
me tell you that's a "Catch 22" when you talk about the drainage issues, because if we
save the trees you can't change the grade around the trees so that may be a little bit of a
drainage issue which needs to be balanced like Mr. Bourdon indicated I think with good
engineering while we're environmentally sensitive to saving these trees. And, the last
thing I want to say is I personally very glad that the Navy put the additional F-18As here
and I hope they fly over my house everyday and every night. Thank you.
Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Bob said it pretty well. I would like to
comment on the plan itself also because I was on the Commission when it came through
the first time. When you flip that board over and you flip it over to this side, it's like a
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 24
world of difference. Looking at the density, and if you take the developable acres and
you divide it to what was proposed you probably get four to the acre. I think the original
plan got to three and a half because there was a lot of variances required in order to create
more land within the floodplain in order to achieve the number of the density. This case,
the developer is not asking for any variance. The variances that we're working with is
the land that's there for the most part with the exception of some of the roadways that
have to get through there, and I appreciate, quite frankly, this type of exhibit because you
get to see the whole floodplain in a much broader sense than some time the way it's
presented, which is very hard to see the whole picture. And this is a very helpful way to
view what's going on. I think Bob probably covered most everything that I was
interested in talking about probably and then some. I think the fact that the developer has
recognized the fact that in working with Mr. Scott, his department, there may be more
adjustments. That's very appreciative from the Planning Commission's point of view,
because I'm sure there's going to be some nips, picks and tucks, and once you get down
on the ground with the engineers and actually measure the inches you're going to find
some differences. You may just find, and hopefully that works out well for the
developer, if that's the case. But, when it comes down for a motion, I'm going to support
this. I think it's a good plan. I think it's very creative, and it as Mr. Miller said "it's
environmentally sensitive to this piece of land" and this land is a developable piece of
land and you have to recognize that. It's 72 acres. Is that correct? Yes Barry.
Barry Knight: I agree with what Ron and Bob both say. We have a unique waterway in
West Neck, and by being in the Southern Watershed Management Area, I would assume
that the largest majority of the water is towards Back Bay. And with the trees over West
Neck Creek, we're subjected to a wind tide, which means when wind blows out of the
north, we get a low tide. When the wind blows out of the south, we get a high tide. And,
if you have a south wind, it backs the water up here, and then if you have a rain event,
which is usually associated with a south wind, then the water can't get away. So, I know
the residents may not have the exact answer that they're looking for but their voice was
heard today because Public Works will get a message that they need to go out there and
see about these trees that are over West Neck Creek or some of the tributaries of West
Neck to try and get them out of here so the water will flow out of this area a little better.
I have a good comfort level with that done that this site will actually improve the
drainage on the surrounding neighborhoods so I'll be supporting this project also. I
wouldn't mind putting that in a way of a motion also.
Ronald Ripley: Do you want to make that a motion at this point?
Barry Knight: If you have more discussion.
Ronald Ripley: Okay.
William Din: I'd just like to make a comment also. I think this development is a
environmentally sensitive development, and I know the speakers that came up here in
opposition of this may feel that they don't see how this is being environmentally safe to
their area, but if you look at the map, the Castleton area, the Pine Ridge area is built right
up to the property line. If those areas were developed with the same environmental
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 25
concerns of these wetlands, you probably wouldn't have the houses butted right up
against this property level. A lot of these houses wouldn't be there, because they are built
in the flood areas or the wetlands that this development is trying to avoid. And, that's
why those areas are lower. You see the line. You see the development of Castleton and
Pine Ridge, come right up to that line. Well, wetlands just didn't stop there. And, so
there is a lot of thought to the environment and the concerns and how this development is
built around the wetland areas and I agree with the comments with the drainage. I think it
will improve the drainage overall in this area and I to will be supporting this.
Ronald Ripley: Are there any other comments? Mr. Scott.
Robert Scott: I feel compelled to say one thing. You have our staff report. My comment
has to do with tree preservation. Our staff has got a lot of experience- in recent times by
dealing with very difficult issues like this. I must say that I would not encourage
anybody to very optimistic about tree preservation on this property for two reasons.
Number one, you have no tree preservation proffer. A note on the plat isn't going to do
any good. By the time this is put to record most of the trees will be gone anyway.
Number two, even with a tree preservation proffer, tree preservation and drainage are sort
of development opposites of one another. There's going to have to be some significant
adjustment to grades in this area, and to adjust grades, you've got to clear trees. I don't
want to labor the point by identifying properties for you that you've dealt with and we've
dealt with recently where we've had significant tree preservations proffers on them.
They're not that effective in preserving trees. The development will sometime
necessitate that the trees be cleared out, and this is a piece of property, with the size of the
lots that are there and with the necessity to put drainage as a top priority, same degree of
manipulation I suspect is going to have to take place. I think that I would not be that
optimistic about the ability to preserve trees. In the interest of fairness, I just need to say
that.
Ronald Ripley: I think that's a very practical statement.
Charlie Salle': I have a comment.
Ronald Ripley: Charlie.
Charlie Salle': Bob, having brought that up, I often observed, that it seems to me that's
actually what happens. You have to grade lots even where there's not even a particular
drainage problem, but you grade them to meet City standards even if the drainage is not
an issue, and as a result of that, the trees have to go. And, I often thought that as a
property owner that I would rather have the trees on the lot and drainage problems and
puddling on my property then see the trees go, but it seems to me that's just the opposite
than most people. We've heard a lot of comments about standing water on people's lots
and people just don't tolerate it. And, I think that message comes across so loudly for the
City that they set the standards so that you have to create these standards to deal with the
drainage. And, I think probably we're our worst enemy when it comes to these issues.
Ronald Ripley: I don't disagree. Okay, Barry, did you want to make a motion here.
Item #19 & 20
Alcar, L.L.c.
Page 26
Barry Knight: I'll make a motion on agenda Items #19 & 20, A1car, LLC, that we
approve the application as proffered.
Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kathy
Katsias. Is there any further discussion? Then, we would like to vote.
AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSO
ANDERSON AYE
CRABTREE AYE
DIN AYE
HORSLEY
KA TSIAS AYE
KNIGHT AYE
MILLER AYE
RIPLEY AYE
SALLE' AYE
STRANGE AYE
WOOD AYE
ABSENT 1
ABSENT
Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion carries.
- 80-
Item V-O.lO.
PLANNING
ITEM # 52430
Attorney Eddie Bourdon, Pembroke One Building, 5th Floor. Phone: 499-8971 represented the
applicant, and noted the attendance of Joe Bushey of Clark Nexsen, Douglas Talbot and Alan S Resh,
re the application for infill development (Nimmo's Quay) of no more than 132 high end
single-family homes located on 112 acres of land, 73 of which are developable land. The proposed
density is no more than 1.8 units per developable acre. This development is surrounded by
6 existing residential neighborhood.... The applicant has agreed to construct two (2) lanes of
Nimmo Parkway from the Fire station all the way to this property at a cost of approximately
$900.000. Sewer and Water, at no cost to the city, will be provided.
Douglas Talbot, advised the areas of the wetlands andfloodplains have been deSigned. Under thirty (30)
homes are located in the 70 to 75 decibel area. Copies of a map indicating the decibel areas were
distributed to City Council.
The following registered in OPPOSITION:
Captain Tom Keeley, Commanding Officer - Naval Air Station Oceana, 1750 Tomcat Boulevard,
Phone 433-3158, Phone: 433-2922, advised this development lies within 3 miles of Ocean a andfalls
underneath the AIC02 map adopted by the Navy and the City. The issue is encroachment and Oceana is
the number one encroached upon installation in the Department of Defense. Single event noise will be
louder in-this neighborhood which lies directly beneath the departure corridor to major Runway 23.
Rear Admiral SA. Turcotte. U.S Navy, Commander - Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, advised this application
may appear as a "pebble", but if one considers the impact of several pebbles (which are under
consideration), it becomes a bolder, All of these will be examined under the Joint Land Use Study, what
areas should be or should not be developed.
Upon motion by Councilman Reeve, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council DEFERRED
INDEFINITELY to allow completion of the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) applications Ordinances upon
application of ALCAR, LL.C. for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit:
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ALCAR, L.L.C. FOR A CHANGE OF
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-I AND AG-2 TO
CONDITIONAL R-10
Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L. C. for a Chanl!e of Zonin!! District
Classification from AG-I and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-lO
Residential District on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), we.\'t of
Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633). The
Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential uses at or
below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the
~ite as a Conservation Area where land-disturbing activities should be avoided.
mitigated or. under certain conditions, prohibited. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS
ANNE
AND,
March 23, 2004
- 81 -
Item V-O.lO.
PLANNING
ITEM # 52430 (Continued)
ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ALCAR, L.L. C. FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPACE PROMOTION
Ordinance upon Application of ALCAR, L.L. C. for a Conditional Use Permit for
Open Space Promotion on the north side of Nimmo Parkway (unimproved), west
of Rockingchair Lane (GPIN 2404573796; 2404564943; 2404371633),
DISTRICT 7 -- PRINCESS ANNE
Voting: 10-0
Council Members Voting Aye:
Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S.
_ McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron
A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood
Council Members Voting Nay:
None
Council Members Absent:
Richard A. Maddox
Due to illness, Councilman Maddox left at 7:58 P.M.
Council Lady Wilson DISCLOSED Pursuant to Conflict of Interests Act ,~ 2.2-3115 (H) her husband is a
principal in the accounting firm of Goodman and Company and earns compensation which exceeds
$10,000.00 annually. Goodman and Company provides services to ALCAR. L.L.C. Her husband does not
personally provide services to ALCAR, L.L. C. The City Attorney has advised that although she has a
personal interest in the transaction, because her husband does not personally provide services to ALCAR.
L.L.C., she may participate without restriction in City Council's discussion of, and vote on, the ordinance.
upon disclosure. Council Lady Wilson's letter of October 28,2003, is hereby made a part of the record
March 23. 2004
2404 Windy Pines Bend
Virginia Beach, VA 23456-3954
March 16,2006
Department of Planning
Current Planning Division
Planning Evaluation Section
2405 Courthouse Drive
Building 2, Room 115
Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040
Dear Virginia Beach City Council,
As property owners adjacent to the subject site, we strongly oppose the application of
ALCAR, LLC, for a change of zoning classification from Agricultural to Residential in
order to build Nimmo's Quay for the following reasons:
< The Navy does not support the rezoning as it would be seen as encroachment upon
operations at Naval Air Station Oceana.
< Traffic Will increase dramatically in an already congested area.
< Kellam High School is currently way over capacity.
< Drainage issues affecting our property have still not been addressed.
< The natural resource of mature trees and mature vegetation will be eliminated.
< The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as a Natural Resource/Conservation Area
and states that land disturbance should be avoided, mitigated or in certain circwnstances,
prohibited.
< More than half of the land is below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain level and
land disturbance and fill are restricted by the City's development ordinances.
< Extensive areas of wetlands would be disturbed.
Although we strongly oppose this rezoning request, if this project is approved, there
should be more open space between our property lines (along Windy Pines Bend) and the
property lines of the proposed development. At this time, the city has no access to storm
drains in this area. Although we continue to pay for city services, including storm water
management, we, not the city, have been maintaining the storm drain behind our house,
keeping it free from debris so that the drainage from our property is somewhat bearable.
We brought up this issue at the Planning Division hearing in 2002 regarding this
.-
application and were advised that the matter would be reviewed. Of course, if there is no
access available, it is difficult for this problem to be addressed.
In addition, the proponent should be required to fund and build four lanes rather than two
lanes of Nimmo Parkway. At least that way, the citizens of Virginia Beach could see
some minimal benefit. The existing two-lane roads in this area (General Booth/North
Landing near the courthouse and Holland Road near Kellam High School) cannot handle
any more congestion which would be caused by the addition of this development and the
many others already approved.
We are also concerned that a new high school has not been proposed and/or budgeted
knowing how overcrowded Kellam High School is. More than eighteen portable units
and having students eat lunch at 9:09 in the morning are not acceptable solutions to the
overcrowding problem.
As life-long citizens of Virginia Beach, we feel that our tax dollars could be put to better
use by improving City Services in this area which is vastly growing. It also seems that
most of our tax dollars go to fund projects at Town Center 3!ld the resort/oceanfront area.
These projects are of maximum benefit to the tourists that visit our city, but are of
minimal benefit to the citizens of Virginia Beach.
We hope that these issues will be addressed and feel that the public's voice has not been
heard in the past (such as the 31 st Street Park issue). In the future, hopefully we can all
work together to make this city a great place to live. Because we really want to be
"living the life in Virginia Beach", but not paying for someone else's.
Sincerely,
Ikk.l/J
j. ~~ L'
{.,., ...., /,... :' ') .1" . .' 7
\.-(/1/\ ~ 7lt,~ '1 (.v' .... c'\.,
John & Angela Snyder
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
ThITER-OBACECORRESPONDENCE
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5676
DATE: June 2,2006
TO:
FROM:
Leslie L. Li~"eY .
B. Kay Wil
'-
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; ALCAR, L.L.C..
The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by
the City Council on June 13, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
March 1, 2006 and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A
copy of the agreement is attached.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter
further.
BKW las
Enclosure
cc: Kathleen Hassen
ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
JAMAST, INC., a Virginia corporation
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 1st day of March, 2006, by and between
ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part;
JAMAST, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the second part; and THE
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of
property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
containing approximately 48.27 acres and described as "Parcel One" in Exhibit" A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which parcel, along with
Parcel "Two" and "Three" is herein referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of three (3) certain
parcels of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, containing approximately 112.3 acres and described as "Parcel One",
"Parcel 1\vo" and "Parcel Three" in Exhibit "An attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, which parcels are herein referred to as the "Property"; and
GPIN: 2404-37-1633
2404-57 -3796
2404-56-4943 (Portion of)
PREPARED BY:
IISylCtS. ROURDON.
AIIrnN & LM. P.c.
1
PREPARED BY:
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the
Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City
of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change
the Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-l and AG-2 to Conditional R-
7.5 Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly
development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land
development legislation; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes
incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the
area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and
the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use
of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally
applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which
the G!antor's rezoning application gives rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of
and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the R-
7.5 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following
reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of
the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative
and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning
and .the need for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest,
voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its
governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro qUO for zoning,
rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the
following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern
the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant
and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the
Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and
m SYl(rs. ROURDON,
DlAIlffiN & LrVY. P.c
2
persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title and
which will not be required of the Grantors until the Property is developed:
1. When development takes place upon that portion of the Property
which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community
substantially In conformance with the Exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL
SUBDIVISION PLAN OF NIMMOS QUAY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated
December 12, 2002, prepared by Clark-Nexsen, which has been exhibited to the
Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of
Planning ("Concept Plan").
2. When the Property IS developed, approximately 22.7 acres of
parklands, lakes and recreation areas designated "Open Space" on the Concept
Plan shall be dedicated to and maintained by the Property Owners Association.
When the Property is developed, playground equipment and neighborhood park
imprqvements meeting the City's Department of Parks and Recreation Standards
shall be installed in the four (4) areas designated "PARK" on the Concept Plan.
3. When the Property is developed, approximately 39.5 acres of land
designated as "Conservation Area" on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to the
City of Virginia Beach for inclusion in the West Neck Creek Linear Park.
4. When the Property is subdivided, it shall be subject to a recorded
Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed
Restrictions") administered by a Homeowners Association, to which membership by
all residential units is mandatory, which shall, among other things maintain the
Open Space areas.
5. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall incorporate
architectural features, design elements and high quality building materials
substantially similar in quality to those depicted on the four (4) photographs
labeled "Typical Home Elevations AT NIMMOS QUAY" dated December 12, 2002
which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with
PREPARED BY: the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Anyone story dwelling shall contain
IJIBSMS. BOURDON. no less than 2500 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and
.. AlIrnN & LM'. P.C
any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed
3
PREPARED BY:
living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded.
The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2)
car garage.
6. When the Property is developed, the party of the First Part shall
construct a two lane section of Nimmo Parkway Phase V-A CIP 2-121 in
accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation's engineering
standards for the roadway, within the existing Nimmo Parkway public right of way
extending east approximately 2560:1: feet from the entrance to the subdivision to
connect with the existing improved Nimmo Parkway road section.
7. When the Property is developed, the party of the first part shall extend
public utilities, to serve the subdivision, including possible construction of an off-
site sewage pump station.
8. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed
Site Plan and/ or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by
all c~gnizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code
requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-7.5 Zoning District and to the
requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the
date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference
incorporated herein.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall
continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning
of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall
continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the
subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or
substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions,
however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and
executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such
instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in
writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by
II STIIS. BOURDON.
AIURN & lIVY. P.C
4
the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which
was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along
with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so
recorded, said instrument shall be void.
The Grantor covenants and agrees that:
(1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall
be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City
of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and
restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any
noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or
suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or
prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or
proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute
cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as
may be appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made
pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the
review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances
and the conditions may be made readily available_- and accessible for public
inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning
Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and
the Grantee.
PREPARED BY:
II SYIC~S. ROURDON.
AHrnN & llVY. P.c.
5
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
ALCAR, L.L.C.,
a Virginia limited liability company
BY:~
Alan S. Resh, Member
(SEAL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of
March, 2006, by Alan S. Resh, Member of ALCAR, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability
company, Grantor.
~,~LJ!-vYl ~~_
../ Notary Public
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006
PREPARED BY:
lIB SYns. ROVRDON.
m AIImN & lIVY, P.c.
6
PREPARED BY:
lIB SYnS. ROURDON.
m AlIIRN & lM, P.c.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
Jamast, Inc., a Virginia corporation
By:
cli!?Q
Alan S. Resh, Vice President
(SEAL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of
March, 2006, by Alan S. Resh, Vice President of Jamast, Inc., a Virginia
corporation, Grantor.
~h-:t 12/ m~{~0
otaIy Public
My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006
7
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL ONE:
That certain tract or parcel of land containing 50.955 acres, more or less, being
bounded on the North by the property now or formerly belonging to the Marie E.
Bratten Estate and T.C.C. Development Co., on the East by the property now or
formerly belonging to Harry L. Van Note and Mabel G. Van Note, and being
bounded on the South by the property now or formerly belonging to Willis Brown
and being bounded on the West by the property now or formerly belonging to
Mauzy F. Riganto and Grace T. Riganto, and being further described as follows:
BEGINNING at a 21-inch cypress located at a common comer between the
property now or formerly belonging to the Marie E. Bratten Estate and Mauzy F.
Riganto and Grace T. Riganto, and running thence North 74 degrees 33 minutes
02 seconds East 293.92 feet to a pipe, North 74 degrees 37 minutes 41 seconds
East 199.08 feet to an iron pipe, North 74 degrees 17 minutes 28 seconds East
460.48 feet to an iron pipe, North 74 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds East 618.23
feet to a pipe, North 75 degrees 32 minutes 21 seconds East 1,900.72 feet to a
pipe, and North 74 degrees 06 minutes 46 seconds East 135.60 feet to an iron
pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence turning and running South 47 degrees 11
minutes 44 seconds East 86.92 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch,
thence South 05 degrees 54 minutes 06 seconds East 113.50 feet to an iron pipe
in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 36 degrees 49 minutes 07 seconds West
131.95 feet, thence South 20 degrees 53 minutes 54 seconds West 91.11 feet to an
iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 48 degrees 29 minutes 10
seconds West 223.72 feet to a point in the Eastem edge of Brown Town Road,
thence South 11 degrees 47 minutes 07 seconds West 324.92 feet to an iron pipe
in the centerline of a ditch located in the Eastem edge of the Brown Town Road,
thence turning and running South 75 degrees 23 minutes 42 seconds West
1,128.71 feet to an iron pipe in the centerline of a ditch, thence South 74 degrees
39 minutes 03 seconds West 1,250.65 feet to an 18-inch maple, thence tuming
and running North 59 degrees 18 minutes 31 seconds West 734.65 feet to a 7-inch
cypress, thence North 39 degrees 06 minutes 41 seconds West 37.22 feet to a 12-
inch cypress, thence North 67 degrees 54 minutes 01 second West 281.79 feet to a
21-inch cypress, the Point of Beginning.
GPIN: 2404-37-1633
PARCEL TWO:
All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, lying, being and situate in Princess
Anne Borough (formerly Seaboard Magisterial District, Princess Anne County) City
11= ~~~. of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and bounded and described as follows:
PREPARED BY:
8
PREPARED BY:
IIsms. 1l0URDON.
AlIrnN & lM. P.c.
Beginning at a pine located at the corner of property now or formerly belonging to
Brown, Roper and Wright's heirs and running thence N 11 % degrees W. 2.64
chains to a pine stump; thence N 43 degrees W 1.10 chains to a pine; thence N 73
% degrees W 2.87 chains to a pine stump; thence N 82 % degrees W 2.45 chains to
a pine stump; thence N 73 degrees W 4.06 chains to a pine; thence N 62 % degrees
W 2.81 chains to a pine stump hole; thence N 31 V2 degrees W 3.44 chains to a
station on the south side of a ditch at the Browntown Bridge; thence N 56 degrees
E 1.44 chains to a station on the south side of a lead ditch; thence N 70 % degrees
E 1.54 chains to an unmarked cypress on the south side of said lead ditch; thence
N 79 % degrees E 2.30 chains to a station on the south side of said lead ditch;
thence N 57 1/2 degrees E 4.37 chains to a station on the south side of said lead
ditch; thence N 55 % degrees E 1.74 chains to a station on the south side of said
lead ditch; thence N 81 1/4 degrees E 3.53 chains to a station on the south side of
said .lead ditch; thence N 67 % degrees E 1.50 chains to a station on the south
side of said lead ditch; thence N 57 degrees E 1.16 chains to a station on the south
side of said lead ditch; thence S 72 % degrees E 2.42 chains to a stone at the
comer of property now or formerly belonging to Roper's Rail Road and the property
of Lamb in the line of property now or formerly belonging to Brown; thence S 14 %
degrees W 3.22 chains to a station in the line of said railroad; thence S 1/4 degree
W 12.69 chains to a stone in the line of said railroad at the comer of property
belonging to Lamb; thence S 87 % degrees W .47 chains to a sweet gum; thence S
87 %_degrees W 1.62 chains to the point of beginning and containing 16 acres and
37 poles more or less.
Excepting from the above is a parcel conveying by deed to the City of Virginia
Beach, Virginia from Harry L. Van Note and Mabel G. Van Note, husband and wife,
for a roadway, said Deed being recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 1098, at Page
545, containing 2.690 acres, more or less, known and designated as Parcel 008
(Courthouse-Indian River Road Extended).
GPIN: 2404-56-4943
PARCEL THREE:
All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, lying in "Brown Town" in Princess
Anne Borough (formerly Seaboard Magisterial District) City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a cypress at Brown Town Bridge, and running North 44 degrees W 2.33
chains to a pine; thence N 29 degrees W 2.67 chains to a post; thence N 10 degrees
W 1.89 chains to a pine; thence N 9 % degrees W 2.19 chains to a pine stump;
thence 6 1/4 degrees W 4.61 chains to a pine; thence N 1 1/4 degrees E 2.06 chains to
a pine; thence N 34 degrees E 4.46 chains to a pine; thence N 38 1,4 degrees E 4.82
chains to an oak; thence N 58 degrees E 3.18 chains to a beech; thence N 46 %
degrees E 2.13 chains to a gum stump; thence N 86 % degrees E 18.31 chains to a
post; thence S 6 % degrees E 5.81 chains on line ditch; thence S 7 % W 12.17 chains
9
PREPARED BY:
13m SYKiS. ROURDON.
.. AHmN & llVY. P.c.
to a stone on line ditch; thence along said ditch S 73 1/4 degrees W 1.43 chains;
thence S 47 degrees W 2.08 chains; thence N 78 ~ degrees W 1.33 chains; thence S
58 1;4 degrees W 1.23 chains; thence N 74 % degrees W 2.01 chains; thence S 60 %
degrees W 2.06 chains; thence S 71 1;4 degrees W .76 chain; thence S 89 degrees W
3.43 chains; thence S 55 degrees W 3.86 chains; thence S 63 1;4 degrees W 2.53
chains; thence S 81 degrees W 2.65 chains; thence S 70 degrees W 2.13 chains;
thence S 57 degrees W 1.07 chains to beginning, containing fIfty-six acres and one
rod, more or less and bounded by the lands now or formerly belonging to Willis
Brown, and Boston Brown and Jno. L. Brown.
GPIN: 2404-57-3796
ConditionalRezone / Alcar / NimmosQuay /Proffer 1 0
Rev.3/03/06
10
Change of Zoning - from AC-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-1 a/PO-H2 and B-1 A
PO-HZ
"if'
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: LBH, L.L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background:
Application of LBH, LLC for a Chanqe of Zoninq District Classification from AG-1
and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-10 Residential with a PD-H2
Planned Unit Development District Overlay and B-1 A Limited Business District on
property located on the west side of Princess Anne Road, approximately 1 ,950
feet southwest of Sandbridge Road (GPINs 2404809627; 2403698016;
2403886753;2403890088;2403798068;2403793035;2414014092). The
Comprehensive Plan designates this site as part of the Princess Anne Transition
Area, -suitable for residential uses developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan policies for this area. The purpose of this rezoning is to
develop a residential neighborhood of mixed unit types and a restaurant.
DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE
. Considerations:
The applicant has assembled seven (7) parcels between Princess Anne Road
and Seaboard Road for potential development of a residential community. The
proposed development is centered on existing borrow pits that are to be
converted into two large lakes. The proposed lakes will be used for non-
motorized water activities.
Three (3) single-family housing types will be available on lot sizes ranging from
6,000 to 10,000 square feet. A multi-family, age-restricted (55 and older)
community will also be incorporated into the development. Tying the entire
development together will be a multi-purpose trail system that will also connect to
an adjacent City-owned site. A 4.3-acre site is designated for dedication to the
City as an extension to that City-owned property. A 150-foot wide buffer along
Princess Anne Road and a 100-foot wide treed buffer along Seaboard Road are
also proposed.
Two parcels are proposed adjacent to Princess Anne Road. The parcel will have
views of the proposed lake. The non-residential parcels are designated for a
restaurant and specialized services.
LBH, L.L.C.
Page 2 of 3
Staff does not recommend approval of this request. During the work of the
Transition Area Technical Advisory Committee (TATAC), which devised the
development rules for the Transition Area, the most frequently asked question to
City staff was how density would be calculated. The consistent answer was that
Section 200 of the City Zoning Ordinance, which provides requirements
regarding what can be considered 'developable,' would govern. The second
most frequently asked question was what the density would be, and the
consistent answer was that one unit per developable acre would be the
maximum. If Section 200 is applied to this proposal, the resulting density would
be 2.2 units per acre, as borrow pits are not eligible for density. At some point in
the future, City Council may have good reason for changing that rule, but the
highly successful collaborative public process that helped create it should not be
forgotten. When matched up against the rules in effect today; this request does
not merit approval.
There was opposition to the request.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 7-4 to approve
the request as proffered; however, the Commission's motion included direction to
the applicant to amend Proffer 5 prior to the City Council hearing to reduce the
number of units from 256 to 240. The applicant has submitted revised proffers
that limit the development to 240 units. A revised site plan was also submitted
showing how the 240 units will be located on the site. The applicant has also
added three additional proffers:
· Proffer 6 volunteers a Traffic Impact Study during detailed site plan
review, and notes that the applicant will complete or bond whatever
improvements are called for by the study at the entrance of the
development at Princess Anne Road.
· Proffer 7 volunteers $400,000 toward improvements to the section of
Princess Anne Road between the Sandbridge Road intersection and
the Flanagans Road intersection.
· Proffer 8 volunteers the dedication to the City of the 4.3-acre parcel
near the northeast corner of the development site.
. Attachments:
Memo from Planning Director to
Planning Commission
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
LBH, L.L.C.
Page 3 of 3
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~
City Manager~ \L -6c3~
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item 12
May 10, 2006 Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo
REQUEST:
Chanae of Zonina District Classification from
AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to
Conditional R-10 Residential district with a
PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District and
B-1A Limited Business Districts.
ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Properties located on the west side of Princess Anne Road, approximately 1950
feet southwest of Sandbridge Road.
GPIN:
24048096270000;
24036980160000;
24038867530000;
24038900880000;
24037980680000;
24037930350000;
24140140920000
COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT:
7 - PRINCESS ANNE
SITE SIZE:
Land Area: 116.64 Acres
(111.54 acres of residential)
( 5.10 acres of non-residential)
Borrow Pit Area: 122.46 Acres
Total Area:
239.10 acres
The applicant has assembled seven (7) parcels of agricultural
zoned land between Princess Anne Road and Seaboard Road for potential development of a residential
community. The proposed development would be centered on existing borrow pits that would be
converted into two large lakes. The proposed lakes would be used for non-motorized water activities.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Three (3) single-family housing types would be available on lot sizes ranging from 6,000 SF to 10,000 SF,
A multi-family and age-restricted (55 and older) community would also be incorporated into the
development. Tying the entire development together would be a multi-purpose trail system that would
also connect to adjacent City Owned site. The total number of dwelling units proposed is 256 (240 units
Post-Planning Commission hearing). The following table provides the break down of units.
'.-';.-
<'
USE ACREAGE NUMBER OF UNITS
BEFORE PLANNING AFTER PLANNING
COMMISSION COMMSISION
Residential (Single-Family) Approximately 102.5 196 single family 180 single family
Acres units units
Residential (Age- restricted I Multi- Approximately 9.0 60 age-restricted 60 age-restricted
familv) Acres units units
RESIDENTIAL (TOTAL) 111.5 Acres 256 TOTAL 240 TOTAL
COMMERCIAL 5.1 Acres -
BORROW PIT 122.46 -
Additionally, two parcels would be created along Princess Anne Road with views of the proposed lake for
proposed" non- residential use. The non-residential parcels would be designated for a restaurant and
specialized services.
The applicant has provided a 150-foot wide buffer along Princess Anne Road and a 1 DO-foot wide treed
buffer along Seaboard Road. Multi-purpose trails have been incorporated within the development as well
as along the perimeter. A 4.3 acres site has been designated for dedication to the City as an extension to
City Owned property adjacent to it.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: Operational borrow pits and undeveloped parcels.
East:
. Single-family dwelling and open space (Highgate Greens
Subdivision) I AG-1 Agricultural & R-20 Residential District
. Undeveloped agricultural land and a recently approved borrow
pit I AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District
. Across Princess Anne Road, large agricultural lots some with
single-family dwellings and one ARP property I AG-1 & AG-2
Agricultural District
. Across Seaboard Road, large agricultural lots with single-family
dwellings I AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING:
North:
South:
West:
NATURAL RESOURCE AND
CULTURAL FEATURES:
The majority of the site is composed of two large borrow pits. There are
mature trees along the perimeter bordering Seaboard Road.
AICUZ:
The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS
Oceana.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Princess
Anne Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two-lane undivided roadway that serves as a
minor suburban arterial roadway. Princess Anne Road is shown on the Master Transportation Plan as a
future 100-foot right-of-way width with an undivided roadway section and a bikeway. Future right-of-way
dedication will be provided during site plan review for both Princess Anne Road and Seaboard Road.
TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic
Princess 13,163 AOT 13,600 AOT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use L _
Anne Road Service "e") can not be determined
15,000 AOT 1 (Level of Proposed Land Use 3 _
Service "0") 3,355 AOT weekdays
Average Dally Tnps
2 as defined by existing land use and zoning
3 as defined by 204 single family homes, 60 age restricted, marina and restaurant
All proposed development that will generate greater than 150 vehicle trips in the peak hour is required to have
a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as part of the rezoning application. The TIS may be performed and submitted to
the City for review after this rezoning process and before the construction plan submittal if a statement is
included in the proffers.
The following information will be confirmed upon the conclusion of the TIS report.
· Right and left turn lanes will be required on Princess Anne Road at the proposed entrance to the
development.
· Traffic signal bond requirements for this development.
· The traffic impacts with the potential connection of Sherwood Lakes to McNelly Lane in the Highgate
Greens Subdivision.
· Review of the details sheet shows the typical section of Street Type "A" with a 60-foot right-of-way and
a 30' pavement width, which does not meet the City standards of 36 feet.
· A cul-de-sac will be required at the southern end of the right-of-way on Street Type "B" (Machimungo
Court).
· The median width at the proposed subdivision entrance at Princess Anne Road is to be reduced to a
maximum width of twelve feet. .
· Crosswalks will not be permitted through traffic circles. Crosswalks will be allowed near the point of
tangency on each "leg" of the traffic circle.
· The use of raised crosswalks will not be allowed unless specifically approved by the City Traffic
Engineer.
· The entrance to the retail/rental center on Princess Anne Road must be shifted approximately 600 feet
south of the northern property line to allow the creation of required left and right turn lanes for this
entrance.
Additional detailed comments from Traffic Engineering will be made regarding the development when the TIS
is submitted to the City for approval and at the construction plan submittal stage.
E!.B.E Initial access issues appear to be resolved. Will address additional details provided during site plan
review.
,c'~ :""
.....':.".;7'-,. ,-". ,
',,,.,. ;
'^'>I.,S H
';:"-"L~J'.-. ",~,
Ag~da Ite
i.,....',.
'v.>.-;,<,
.,,4
POLICE: Provide numerical addresses on the back of the rear load units. See standard CPTED comment at
the rear of this report.
WATER: There are no City water mains within the vicinity of this site. Water does not front the property, but
may be extended for connection purposes provided hydraulic analysis supports the potential demand.
SEWER: There are no City sanitary sewers within the vicinity of this site. City sanitary sewer is not available.
Plans and bonds are required for construction of a new pump station and sanitary sewer system.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Borrow pits, BMP's or any kind of impoundment that receives runoff are not
considered appropriate or safe for swimming.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT: The proposed lakes may serve as potential storm water management
facilities. These proposed lakes would not be suitable for primary contact (swimming). Secondary contact
(non-motorized watercraft) may be suitable. Confirmation during site plan review of drainage problems on
adjacent property is required and if problems are found would need to be addressed.
SCHOOLS:
School Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2
Enrollment
P A Elementary 945 899 61 +56
P A Middle 1552 1468 34.8 +32
Kellam Hiqh 2410 1839 47.5 +44
. . "
generation represents the number of students that the development Will add to the school
2 'change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The
number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students).
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT: The expansion of the existing Baillo Sand Pit approved by City Council on
September 27,2005 is to continue to utilize the existing entrance located on property and shown as part of
the proposed plan.
The intense urban development shown on the plan for the Princess Anne /Transition Area as well as the
traffic, conflicts with the existing agricultural land uses (farming operations I borrow pit operations).
Leave the area adjacent to the Highgate Greens Subdivision open space dedicated to the City as open space.
This would result in larger contiguous parcels for both developments to enjoy.
The loss of approximately 38 acres of cropland and 32 acres of timberland as a result of this project.
Drainage from adjacent property to the north will likely be impacted as the drainage ditches connect and drain
south through the proposed development.
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION: The applicant has worked with City staff on visual and
physical connections to adjacent City Owned Property.
The applicant has dedicated to the City approximately 4.3 acres adjacent to city owned property to enhance
the open space. Also, in addition to the dedicated Transition Area Buffers along Princess Anne Road and
(0' '-,", ""~'
'.. ,,'c-''- ...
, ; '. :''-_'>':-:~:~:~;:,-;;:L;:,
,(;:J..;.B.H., U~~.C.
Ag~da Itern;~;,:12..
. '..e:~'~~;.4
Seaboard Road, a multi-purpose trail easement consistent with 'The Bikeways and Trails Plan for the City of
Virginia Beach" adopted by City Council has been provided. The multi-purpose trails are designed for potential
connection to adjacent properties and access around the proposed development.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as part of the
Princess Anne I Transition Area. The land use planning policies and principles for this area strongly focus
on promoting this area as a well-planned, low density, fiscally sound and desirable destination for people
to live, work and play.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This application exceeds the recommended density for this area. Of the overall 239-acre site, 122.46
acres is currently utilized as borrow pits and not recognized as "developable" area to be counted towards
permitted residential density. The developable acreage on the subject site is determined under Section
200(b)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 200(b)(3) states that any manmade drainage areas such as
borrow pits and the easements over them constructed primarily for purposes other than storage and
retention of storm water shall not be included in determining allowable dwelling unit density. Therefore the
developable acreage of this proposal must exclude the approximate 122 acres of "lakes". After
subtraction of the 5.1 acres of non-residential, the remaining 111.54 acres of land would be used for the
calculation of density. Based on this definition of developable area, the plan as submitted represents a
density of 2.2 units per acre, double the maximum density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for
the Transition Area. The Transition Area Matrix therefore cannot be used to evaluate this proposal.
Accordingly, it cannot be said that this proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not recommend approval of this request. During the work of the TATAC Committee, which
devised the development rules for the Transition Area, the most frequently asked question was how
density would be calculated, and the consistent answer was that Section 200 of the City Zoning
Ordinance would govern. The second most frequently asked question was what the density would be,
and the consistent answer was that one unit per acre would be the maximum. If Section 200 is applied to
this proposal, the resulting density would be 2.2 units per acre. At some point in the future, City Council
may have good reason for changing that rule, but the highly successful collaborative public process that
helped create it should not be forgotten. When matched up against the rules in effect today, this request
does not merit approval.
Please note that there are three sets of proffers. One set of proffers for the proposed residential
development, one set of proffers for the proposed retail center, one set of proffers for the proposed
restaurant parcel.
PROFFERS (RESIDENTIALl
The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The
applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these
proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"
(9107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve
f'-:' ,.~_''- ,"
'~.,,' .-' - .,:; 'i.
;(,:;.B.H.,.' 'Lgt. c.
Ag~,!tdaJte :1.2
as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning.
PROFFER 1:
The party of the first part agrees to develop the Property substantially in conformity with the Land Use Plan
entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES" (the" Plan") prepared by MSA,
P.C., dated 07/31/05, which Plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Department of
Planning.
PROFFER 2:
The party of the first part shall design and construct all public streets within Sherwood Lakes as depicted on
the Plan such that street sections, sidewalks, lighting and trails shall substantially conform with the exhibit
entitled "DETAILS OF SHERWOOD LAKES", prepared by MSA, P.C., dated 07/31/05, which Plan has been
exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Department of Planning.
PROFFER 3:
The Grantor shall record a Master Deed of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Restrictions")
governing all of the Property except that which is dedicated to the Grantee. The Restrictions shall be
enforced by a Property Owners Association, to which membership by all residential units is mandatory,
which will be responsible for maintaining all common areas, including the community owned open space
areas (including both lakes) with pedestrian, multi-purpose trails. The Restrictions shall also require that
every occupied residential unit in the section designated "AGE RESTRICTED" on the Plan be occupied, on a
full time basis, by at least one (1) adult resident over fifty-five (55) years of age. The Restrictions shall also
prohibit persons under twenty (20) years of age from residing in any residential unit or units for more than
ninety (90) days in any calendar year. The Property Owners Association shall enforce the mandated age
restrictiol=ls.
PROFFER 4:
When developed, the four (4) residential dwelling components depicted on the Plan shall have the
architectural features, appearance and quality substantially as depicted on the "Elevations" entitled: (a)
"EXECUTIVE HOMES at SHERWOOD LAKES" dated 7-31-05; (b) "MANOR HOMES at SHERWOOD
LAKES" dated 7-31-05; (c) "COTTAGE HOMES at SHERWOOD LAKES" dated 7-31-05; (d) "AGE
RESTRICTED HOMES at SHERWOOD LAKES" dated 7-31-05, which have been exhibited to the City
Council and is on file in the Department of Planning.
PROFFER 5:
The total combination of single family and multi-family units to be developed on those portions of the
Property zoned PDH-2 may not exceed a maximum of 256 units.
PROFFER 6:
The party of the first part agrees that during the detailed site plan review it shall conduct a Traffic Impact
Study of the impacts of Sherwood Lakes. The Grantor agrees to substantially complete or bond the required
improvements on Princess Anne Road at the entrance to Sherwood Lakes that are called for in the Traffic
Impact Study. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to issuance of the first
permanent occupancy permit for residents within Sherwood Lakes,
PROFFER 7:
When the Property is developed, the :!:.4.3 acre parcel near the northeast corner of the property designated
"CITY PARK DEDICATION" on the Concept Plan shall be given and dedicated to the Grantee.
" ~,.'~ .'
;.,,; ,..~.,.: ", .
" ';,-~:':."",>::;;,'-"
....,.;./'::...."
,~ .~ . *-
,- ,,/~ :-:
':..'^ {'-" ,.'.~',.' --,..,.
;(;::LJB .H. ,L:~ti-. c.
A9'endalte.m~
PROFFER 8:
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of
applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code
requirements.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are not acceptable to staff, as they do not sufficiently
address the density issue of this development.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated July 31, 2005, and found it to be legally
sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
PROFFERS (RESTAURANT PARCELl
The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The
applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these
proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"
(9107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve
as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning.
PROFFER 1:
When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled
"CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES", dated 07/31/05, prepared by MSA, P.C.,
which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan").
PROFFER 2:
When the Property is developed, the exterior of the building depicted on the Site Plan shall have "low
country", rurally compatible architectural features, high quality building materials and earth tone colors.
Detailed building elevations and a materials board shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and
approval prior to the review of any site plan for this Property.
PROFFER 3:
The only use which shall be submitted to the Planning Director shall be Eating and Drinking Establishments
without drive-through windows.
PROFFER 4:
All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises
and aw.ay from adjoining property.
PROFFER 5:
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of
applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code
requirements.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are not acceptable to staff, as the plan in conjunction with
this conditional rezoning does not sufficiently address the density issue of this development.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated November 17, 2005, and found it to be
legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
PROFFERS (RETAil CENTER),
The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The
applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these
proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"
(9107(h)(1 )). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve
as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning.
PROFFER 1:
When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled
"CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES" ,dated 07/31/05, prepared by MSA, P.C.,
which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan").
PROFFER 2:
When the Property is developed, the exterior of the building depicted on the Site Plan shall have the
architectural features and colors substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "RETAIL BUILDING WITH
10' WRAP AROUND PORCH", prepared by Land Planning Solution, which has been exhibited to the
Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter
"Elevation").
PROFFER 3:
The only uses which shall be permitted on the Property shall be:
a. Retail Establishments;
b. Specialty shops;
c. Personal service establishments to include spas;
d. Art galleries;
e. Florists, gift shops, stationary stores.
PROFFER 4:
All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises
and away from adjoining property
PROFFERS ADDED SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION:
PROFFER 5:
The total combination of single family and age-restricted multi-family units to be developed on those portions
of the property zoned PDH-2 may not exceed a maximum of 240 units.
PROFFER 6:
The party of the first part agrees that during detailed site plan review it shall conduct a Traffic Impact Study
of the impacts of Sherwood Lakes. The Grantor agrees to substantially complete or bond the required
improvements on Princess Anne Road at the entrance to Sherwood Lakes that are called for in the Traffic
Impact Study. Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to the issuance of the
first permanent occupancy permit for residents within Sherwood Lakes.
PROFFER 7:
Prior to the Grantee issuing the first building permit for any residential unit, the party of the first part shall
contribute the sum of $400,000.00 to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee for right of way improvements to
that section of Princess Anne Road lying south of its intersection with Sand bridge Road and north of its
intersection with Flanagans Lane. In accordance with Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, if the
Grantee has no projects for any right-of-way improvements to the designated section of Princess Anne Road
in Grantee's Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) at the time the first building permit is requested, payment
of the $400,000.00 contribution shall be deferred until the Grantee includes such a project in its C.I.P. If the
funds proffered and paid by the party of the first part in this paragraph are-not used by the Grantee anytime
within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and
unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose.
PROFFER 8:
When the Property is developed, the :!::4.3 acre parcel near the northeast corner of the property designated
"CITY PARK DEDICATION" on the Concept Plan shall be given and dedicated to the Grantee.
PROFFER 9:
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of
applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code
requirements.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are not acceptable to staff, as the plan in conjunction with
this conditional rezoning does not sufficiently address the density issue of this development.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated July 31, 2005, and found it to be legally
sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to
meet all applicable City Codes.
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police
Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site.
.'..__n,.. '\""""'--\.,
,.",', '," . ~, '
""';, ;;""';,:;<'0,"
) -,>. ,~
...... -"r.-'
:", /'-'-"1 '_ ":'~.' '0' ',., c. " .-
:{EL:.B.H~,
AQ:&fltia ItE!
AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 10
-z_
, ~
.<~.
/.-::- .~
:~.?~/-,~~
'v' -
<-
~~
7~
-i _
i~ ~l'j
[1 I -,
~ It ~ i~~ uss!
n..~; . Jh. J,lf~
! it I !l
~dJ I"" il j j hIlI
!u ! IS!! WI!
i , . .
s ~.. lI::_ ..:,
HiI ill IiI
01 ~ ~
~ l l~
0:. .:!I
. '" :!' =-
<:I!:...~.=E"
~ j 'I'f.i.~~
~ .:!i::.r.;:Z~:;;
(/)
Q)
- ~ -c
o "' IX
j..;.J ]
l1. 0
5-0 ~
o Gl
~O ~ <
~ O~>:
5i~!-5
- c: III
~ < :
Q.Q)=~
~..r:. Gl :5
c: ~ llll
8tJ)iE5
'2 f~ fa fa
~ If f -,
~ -Ill lJ
j h 13 h
fid 11
..J:] .
- .,
'p
. .t
=e ~.
>;,
H
H
~. ...._-. .- 1,
j!
. :.. ... t.
o , . , ,. ~
i~
Ii
!5
.---
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
(see next two pages for greater
detail)
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 11
Conceptual Site Layout Plan Of
Sherwood Lakes
Princess Anne Rd.jSeaboard Rd.
Virginia Beach, VA
~
;.,. 20' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
1, 1i. WI CATfiOOII/(HV
~ LAN~!~__
~\ ~i
Propmcd Traflic Circle at McNdly Lane
(Adjacent to HiJIa'" Gtcens)
SIDtWALK (J'tP.)
. 60 COTTAGE
M1N. LOT SIZE
. -- ---~;.7>-~~-
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
(WESTERN HALF)
I..EJ.ti., I..I..C:.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 12
\
/
'50' TItAN5mON AaA
I.. - EARMENT
IIEl'NI./IlEHrAL CEN'l1!R
I l8-1A)
I *2.3 Ac.
15l1'ftANSITION _
--
f
j
LOCA~ MAP - SCALL: ,. _ 2.00(r
JibItDAta
,.. ""-= Z239..10 AI:
-.~ AC.:l
- Ow. _ (PDH2) (z234.0Ac.)
-.'A)(Z$.' Ac.)
_~ PO+t2
~~ It.'O......,
Ooen ~ Surnmaty
o,....__d, _(117.oAc.)
0,.... _ _ 740ft ('75.06 Ac.)
UMl....__
lUM-........
T_-"--, 60
T___ 60
T_~_ 60
T-.l6 - I...... 60
TaIaI.d~ 240
Legend
o
[]
.
.-
---~
"""""""'_7S'Ic12O'
--(-~
"""""""'_7S'lI1-'O'
_.,.
""'O'Al.5"
--
-...
"'0'610"
--
--
"---~
-""'_60'>0'-'0'
-,.
_0".....
--
i ,r
;~
~:il
g~
~...
~~
~i!
;~
i~
"'~
S~
DATE: 07/31/05
exhibit For Conditional Rezoning
ThIll concept plan Is Inl8nCIed for ~ ~
only. ThIs plan II not lD be wed for CIClNDUClIon.
Rev. Date: 05119106
lO(f O' 200'
/I-.......~
_ SCALE
,.. - 200"
400'
I
I'topmed E1....cd Cms.waIk .,
Open Sp;occ/AJlcy ConllCClion
..,.
: 1
, ,
, , ~ '
,. .
, - I J
~..... VA~
".,,-
MSA, P.C.
l..andscape ArchitOClUn:
Planning
Sun-eying
Engineering
Enrinmmenf<ll Sc:icJJc:cs
M8.A PKOJ. M:H126
",
t
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
(EASTERN HALF)
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 13
I/'J
Q)
~-c:i
(Uac:
-11
o
-c~
O~
O~~
~1Il-fi
c .
C II
- < III
OQ,>_.
~ ~ B :5
~-- C ..
Ii ,,.. "C ~
o VJ C. >
~
i
I
i ~
. ~
J ~l !
~
I '"
s
" " ~
\ ~
~
..
~
t
s
.
~~I
.~
PROPOSED DETAILS
~I 11:
ilfilll
ii'.~- -'.- '..
.- '
_.-- , ;
,
.
I,,] :
~~
;;;lH
~\~
w!ii
~.f
o~lI
1 :
..
Sl
i
,.
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 14
I-
U
::l
C
o
II::
0.
C
<
o
.J
II::
<
III
!:r
In
l-
e
..J
III
C
3:
2>
It)
,
I~
s~
,.. ~
~I~
Zl c::~
ZI ~-
'< oc
~: ~~
CI=-
Zl~
j~
.
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 15
r;}~~
I V . ...: ....,;.. 0 r: ... c .... V .. ~ ... .:,
\
LOT SIZE 50' X t 20'
, .
\',
i.I' : ..
, ".
\"'.
., ,
T.:
\..;
I>. .-:
f..:-:-.----
I: ..
i.: :
!.:
,.'
,. .
. lL:..:.:.~..:'.-,.~-...-:-.'~ L~. .. ...
L.Ol' SIZE SO'x.'~ .-...............
NO.3
no.
..
lAND ['LANNING SOLUTIONS
5857 IiARAOUR VIfW PotVl) ST:F. 202
SCHoue v~ 2J435--2bS7
o :;S7_9J5.Q014 r 7Si.935.Q015
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 16
9f~~
LOT SIZE 50' X 120'
;.: .
f. .
~ . : .
. L'::2.::':',_~~,-,.c'.:..:...:...c _.~".
. ..._,"" - - .---'--~
:...or 5IZE !5O"X12O'
NO.4
g'I'i1.,.~
i'~
;~
l.AND PLAJ'olNING SOLUTIONS
saS7 HARBOUR VIEW BLVD. Sn. 202
SUfFOLJ::. VA. 2J.43$.26$7
0757.935.9014 F 757:935,901$
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 17
I-
U
::l
o
o
It
ll.
o
<
o
..I
It
<
III
~
III
I-
o
-I
III
o
~
Lo
"
=
:.~ '\~.
I~ ;,
l~ ~
1:"1 ?;'.,
Iz '<
- >>
z ".
z c_
I~. !~
::$.d.
z ;:
<; ;;
f- ....
.
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 18
(f/~~
LOT SIZE 75' X 120'
-_.~_.'_"'_..'-"'-"-"-' ....
-......... ..:......
:;:.;....-:.... :.......:: '':'' ";\'L_.:::<:.:.<':...~,
'"
W SIX 1'5' X IlO'
No.2
II
lAND Pl.ANNtt-:G SOLUTIONS
5857 tt~~g~KIlj'1~4~~b!!f' 202
0751.935.9014 f 75i '?35.9Q15
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 19
r;J~~ f4,kJ
LOT SIZE 75' X 120'
". :
..o.j
,. .'
I".,
.~ .,
. "
," 0"
r. ':~
. .,
.: l
'....j
..
." ,
~. .
-.:
.. _::~
I::..>....: :.....:::::
.' :
l.OT SIZE '!S'X,:lO
NO.'
g
:"1
lAND rLANNING SOLUTIONS
5857 ~t':fgg~'~I!~~,~'.:~~tC. 202
0757.935.9014 f i'S7.93S.ClO15
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 20
~
U
::l
o
o
a:
Q.
o
c(
o
.J
~
Z
o
a:
IL.
III
~
o
.J
ILl
o
~
U)
,."
~':
"
fi
,'"
~~
~~i--
~~
;i3
<::,,~
.:~, ~
" .
~~
"
.
L.B H L L
Agenda" It"' " .c.
em # 12
Page 21
(jJ~~
LOT SIZE 75' X 120'
"..., - ~': I
.0. :1
: .1
:j
o' ,
-\
~ !
-.j
,
. ~
'-~.l
i
i
J-'~=-
f
I ~'-
I:' .-
i'
t-
I:.
:.. .
...... "
LOT SIZE 'l'S'X12:T
NO.1
II
-,
..1
I
i
:"i
.0"1
o:!
-;oj
" I
.. .~
.1
:,
.:1
- !
:. I
.j
..i
lAND PLANNING SOLUTIONS
5857 ~~:~1.Er'~~~.JiE. 2()2
0757.935.901-4 F 757."3$.901$
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 22
r;J~~~
LOT SIZE 75' X 120'
-
:D-<n<:NoC
i
~
~~0IItT..~,.~
-"..-+-._-----~~-,_..__.
- .
I . ..
.. ....:!
.._.._.._.._"._.~:'.':'::.:':..:.....:":~
II'"
~I
l' ".
J~
.:'1
. ".;
: ~ i
.-i
. ~
)
....j
'.j
'-'/
".J
"1
.,' ..j
" .,
.. ~ ':1
"::
,
"
:.]1
. -I'
...,i
LAND I'LANNll'o:G SOLUTIOI'o:S
585; ~~}l:~~Er':J3~?lb?iI. 202
o 7Si.93S?Ol.a r 7S7.~3S'9O]S
L.B.H., LL.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 23
Cl
z "I~
z ~
> gl~~
- ~.
..J =1 ~;;;
::; ~.,:.,
IJJ V': .It.:;:
c:: ,- >"'"
Z ~N
0 - >~
IJJ 0 ~ 5~
.J <; ~:
~ LL. - ~,..
c... <::
Z IIJ e,::"
:> Z ~
IIJ < ~
c:: -' ~
C\I 1: fI
C) ~
z C)
0 Z
.J ::c
- c::
::l
lD c(
n.
>- c::
oJ 0
~ 0
< .J
IL LL.
~ ~
.J UI
::l c::
~ LL.
~.
J1
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 24
,1,
.
. J
"'
'.- J:;;,
-_._._~,
,
'"
~"
lj
.~
-~.__.
I
Ir'.,/~, :.
Ii';";""
:.~. .'?~J
?I.. '."... .
- . ~ ,1 :: '. ',~,;
f - '-'1.1 ~I "
_ II ~'...'
,I (. ~"". :..
II..
I 11 ~:.
~. ;.:~.
t Y_':~.'~. '~...' .".:~~:~~? '
V r.. ~ _ . "'~. .< ',\~'I.'.~>.; J
1~1~}~%,$~
I.!ltf;._.,.r . ~.~<,,,
. ~~\t~j~ '/. ,~. t; ;,: ,:.
tf'H'F'
C:'~ >i..., ~ -",,~ . 'r ,:~:';;
"'~!;r '.l """. ....~..'C '.-r '~:. -....:...
,:I:r:.;)j;~*1~'\ .
(.~i':J.': . ' .: \/~..;;:.
.,:..~. - , "., -.:" -:-
. ,... " ~"...... .:. .
", ..,' - , . . ..:.......~
~~ ;;:.>~--~':
",Z1";
!~ %;
'5 ~
,~ ~,;:
Iii) f,i
.....~
~ g
II
~
u
o
c
Cl
Z
t-
e(
o
-I
11.
1:
t-
~
~
o
o
-I
a:
IIJ
>
o
o
z
<(
~
a:
e(
D..
t-
Z
o
0::
11.
IIJ
~
<(
..J
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 25
r&;H2
Conditional Zoning Change from AG-1/AG-2 to PD-H1
1 09/27/05 Conditional Use Permit for Borrow Pit Granted
2 02124/04 Conditional Rezoning from AG-1 & AG-2 to PDH-2
Street Closure
Subdivision Variance Granted
3 . 04/23/02 Conditional Use Permit Borrow Pit Reconsideration Denied
4 04/27/99 Conditional Use Permit for Fraternal Organization
(Lodge) Granted
5 03/25/97 Conditional Use Permit for Church Granted
6 10/26/93 Conditional Use Permit Open Space Promotion Granted
7 10/23/90 Conditional Use Permit Borrow Pit Expansion Granted
8 04/20/81 Conditional Use Permit for Borrow Pit Granted
9 12/17/79 Conditional Use Permit for Borrow Pit Granted
ZONING HISTORY
L.B.H., L.L.C.
Agenda Item # 12
Page 26
Ci.ty of -Virgi~rti.a Beach.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
757.38&4621
FAX (757) 385-5789
DIRECT 757.385-5801
Y8govoCOm
MUNICIPAl CENTER
BUILDING NUMBER 2
2405 COURTHWSE DRIVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456
INTER-oFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 3, 2006
TO: Virginia Beach Planning Commissioners
FROM: RobertJ. Scott, Planning Director ~
SUBJECT: Rules for Development in the Transition Area
On February 8, 2006, the Planning Commission deferred two rezoning applications of
LBH, LLC for property surrounding a borrow pit on Princess Anne Road. The proposed
development is subject to the Transition Area Technical Advisory Committee (TATAC)
guidelines, which specifies a maximum density of one dwelling unit per developable
acre. As you may recall, this proposal is at a density of 2.1 units per developable acre,
. or, to put it differently, meets the 1 unit per acre requirement if density credit is given for
the acreage of the borrow pit, which is not developable acreage, and in addition~
certain consideration for density is given for age-restricted senior housing.
During the February 8 discussion, the Planning Commission asked whether a differen.t
approach to the rules might be appropriate, given that this application, though dense,
appears to promote recreation and open space goals.
The density rule of one unit per developable acre was derived by the TATAC, a group of
diverse stakeholders appointed by City Council during the fall of 2002. The
recommendations of TATAC were adopted by the City Council in February of 2003.
The density rule was derived after several months of hard work and compromise in a
very open public setting. It should not go without mention that the applicant in this
matter served as one of the Council appointed participants. Although the group jointly
settled on the rule of one unit per developable acre, the zoning ordinance does not lay
out a definition of the term "developable acre". Accordingly, I was asked as Planning
Director how this rule would be administered. I was asked this repeatedly in the TATAC
deliberations, in the Council debate that followed it, and in numerous discussions
MEMO: Planning Commission Members
Page 2
surrounding them both, and in every instance, I answered that Section 200 of the zoning
ordinance would govern. Section 200 specifies in detail which types of properties are to
be given density credit and which are not. In every application that has been brought
forth in the Transition Area since February of 2003, Section 200 has been used to
identify eligibility for density credit. I believe it is the established rule applicable in the
Transition Area and everywhere else in the City. It is sensible, logical, and effective.
It is the acknowledged purpose of the TAT AC report to promote recreational and open
space opportunities within the Transition Area. While a borrow pit clearly is not eligible
for density credit under the rule just outlined, it could under certain circumstances
provide valuable water-oriented recreational opportunities equal to the recreational
benefit of high land for which density credit would be given. The certain circumstances I
allude to are of course related to the suitability of the physical characteristic of the water
body. It could be that a different rule than the one agreed upon, if the circumstances
were right, might serve the purpose of the TATAC report equally well.
The problem is that a rule arrived at by a careful deliberative method engaged in by
diverse stakeholders at the invitation of the City Council should not simply be tossed
aside and replaced by a new rule, no matter how meritorious that new rule may seem,
without careful consideration and the knowledge and concurrence of the Planning
Commission and City Council. To do otherwise would undermine the well-intentioned
public involvement that Council has put in place and cast doubts on the integrity of the
governmental process.
If the Planning Commission and City Council were to consider a rule applicable only to
the Transition Area giving density credit for borrow pits provided a.) they were
incorporated into residential developments, b.) they were converted into suitable active
recreation areas available to the public; and c.) they would otherwise be unavailable for
public recreational uses, the Commission and Council might find that the purpose of the
Transition Area guidelines were better served by that rule. Elements, including but not
limited to, water quality, bank stabilization and treatment; water body depth, size and
configuration; relationships to other elements such as roadways, existing
neighborhoods and proposed lots; configuration of the resulting development, including
lot size and location; completion of the amenity prior to the resulting additional lots being
released for permits; and availability of the amenity to the general public, should all be
considered.
I strongly recommend that such consideration not be extended to parts of the City
outside the Transition Area, since density considerations are simply different there. The
strong weight given to recreation and open space by the TATAC approach sets the
Transition Area apart.
It has been customary in all areas of the City for City Council to provide some density
consideration for senior age-restricted housing on the grounds that seniors often do not
impact the full range of city services and facilities that younger citizens and their families
do. Acting on a case-by-case basis, Council has granted consideration up to twice the
MEMO: Planning Commission Members
Page 3
allowed density in some cases, but in other cases where the roads were already heavily
impacted, less density credit was extended. No adjustment to this approach is
suggested here.
The LBH project, aside from the issue of density, has no critical problems or.
shortcomings. It is well designed and appears to complement the character of the
Transition Area. If you do not feel comfortable with the type of rule change outlined
above, you should not approve this application. The worst situation is a good rule not
followed. However, if you feel this approach could help the Transition Area and are
comfortable applying it, if and where other similar cases arise, then the issue of the
matrix must be discussed. Ordinarily, the staff does not provide a matrix evaluation
when an application fails to meet the basic requirements, but since the Planning
Commission has raised this issue, provided here is one calculation following through on
the existing rule (which would allow 76 conventional units plus 60 age-restricted units,
for a total of 136 units) and another following through on the alternate rule (which would
allow 180 conventional units plus 60 age-restricted units, for a total of 240 units).
RJS:jrns
I
I Transition Area Matrix
Allowable maximum residential density for any rezoning in the Transition Area
under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan is 1 unit per acre. The maximum
density can be achieved through adherence to the Evaluative Criteria provided
below and further explained in the Design Guidelines for the Transition Area.
Each section of the Evaluative Criteria below ties to the Design Guidelines
through the graphic icon at the top of the section. For further guidance on the
respective section of the Matrix, turn to the page of the Guidelines that has the
corresponding graphic icon.
Staff will 'score' the proposed development for its consistency with the Evaluative
Criteria below. The scores are then totaled and the total is 'plugged' into the
formula below to determine the recommended maximum density for the
development.
PROJECT: LBH
MATRIX REVIEW DATE:
PROJECT DATE:
Evaluative Criteria
Total Comments
Natural Resources
Degrees to which the project 0.6
preserves and integrates into the
overall project the natural
resource amenities on the site.
Amenity 4.0
Nature and degree of the
amenity
Design
Degree to which the project 4.9
incorporates good design into the
project
Transition Area Matrix
Page 1 of 7
C:\Documents and Setlings\swhite\Desktop\_ T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc
Line A -- total number of points from the worksheets on the following pages.
Line B -- total divided by the total number of possible points, which is 11
Line C --total from Line B multiplied by 0.5, which is the amount between the baseline density of 0.5
dwelling units per acre and the possible 1 dwelling unit per acre (du/ac).
Line D -- total from Line C added to 0.5 du/ac (the baseline density) to obtain the maximum density for the
site.
Line E -- total from Line D multiplied by the number of developable acres on the site, thus providing the
maximum number of units for the site.
(1) Natural Resources
Existing forests, wetlands, meadows, cultivated fields, and
related features
a) Are natural resources protected?
Comments: the site has no significant
natural resources except for a stand of trees
adjacent to the north side of the borrow pit
and a wooded area adjacent to Seaboard
Road. The remainder of the site is borrow pit
and cultivated field. The stand of trees on
the north side appears to be largely
removed to provide for home sites. The
wooded area adjacent to Seaboard Road is
largely preserved as a buffer.
b) Are natural resources integrated into project?
Comments: No. As noted above, much of
the wooded area on the north side is
removed for home sites. The other wooded
area is retained as a buffer but is not
. integrated into the development. Due to the
borrow pits, the development maximizes the
open areas / cultivated fields of the existing
site for home sites and infrastructure. Note:
the borrow pits (future lakes) are not
considered natural resource amenities. They
are considered man-made lakes, which are
addressed elsewhere in this matrix.
YES x (0 to 1
point)
NO 0 (0 points)
YES 0 (0 to 1
point)
NO x (0 points)
NATURAL RESOURCES TOTAL
Insert in appropriate box on page 1
Total
0.6
o
0.6
Transition Area Matrix
Page 2 of 7
C:\Documents and Settings\swhite\Desktop\.. T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc
(2) Amen it
A feature that increases the attractiveness or value of the site
consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area.
a) Is the amenity, if present, visually or
operationally available to those who do not
own property in the development?
Comments: The plan depicts the amenity as
being the borrow pits transformed into lakes.
The lakes are visually available to those
who do not own property in the
development.
b) Does the amenity consist of recreational
components?
Comments: The amenity is related to
recreational components. There is a small
playground at the western edge of the larger
lake. There are trails running along the
border of the lake, primarily within the
buffers adjacent to Princess Anne and
Seaboard Roads. The plan also shows the
dedication to the City of a 4.3 acre park site
on the northern edge of the larger lake.
Total
YES X (0 to 1
point)
1.0
NO 0 (0 points)
YES X (0 to 1
point)
1.0
NO 0 (0 points)
Transition Area Matrix
Page 3 of 7
C:\Documents and Settings\swhite\Desktop\_ T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc
c) Are improvements made that provide visual or
physical access to the natural resources on
the site OR are improvements made to create
a new amenity to the property? YES x (0 to 1
point) 1.0
Comments: Yes. In order for the amenities
to become reality, the existing borrow pit will
have to be extensively altered to create the
Jake as depicted on the plan. Also, trails will
be constructed and a playground provided.
NO o (0 points)
d) Is there connectivity linking any open space
and/or amenities between this development
and adjacent existing or future developments?
- YES x (0 to 1
Comments: Yes. The trails shown on the point) 1.0
plan connect to the neighborhood street
stub to the north, to Seaboard Road, and to
future trails along Princess Anne Road.
NO o (0 points)
AMENITY TOTAL 4.0
Insert in appropriate box on page 1
Transition Area Matrix
Page 4 of 7
C:\Documents and Settings\swhite\Desktop\... T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc
(3) Desi n
Creation or execution in an artistic or highly skilled manner
consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area.
a) Are natural or man made water features
incorporated into the development in a way
that they serve as amenities?
Comments: Yes. The plan depicts the
alteration of the existing borrow pits to lakes.
The resulting lakes are the central focus of
the amenities for this development.
b) I~ there an attempt to integrate the amenities
as an integral part of the overall
development?
Comments: Largely yes. Due to the location
of the borrow pit (future lake) on the site, it is
not possible to surround it with home sites.
As a result, the development is designed
such that the lake and wooded area to the
west is accessible to the residents by way of
the trail system. Additionally, the restaurant
proposed on Princess Anne Road is
provided a unique location where the lake is
the primary amenity.
YES x (0 to 1
point)
NO 0 (0 points)
YES x (0 to 1
point)
NO 0 (0 points)
Total
1.0
0.9
Transition Area Matrix
Page 5 of 7
C:\Documents and Setlings\swhite\Desktop\_ T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc
c) Does the development retain or create views
or scenic vistas that can be seen from the
road? YES x (0 to 1
1,0
Comments: Yes. The plan depicts the point)
required Transition Area buffer along
Princess Anne Road, which will be altered
and planted to vastly improve the view from
the road from that which currently exists.
The new buffer will also provide a view of
the lake, any activity upon the lake, and the
homes on the far shore of the lake. NO o (0 points)
'.
d) Is a mixture of lot sizes and the clustering or
massing of homes used to achieve a primarily
apen space development?
Comments: There is not a significant YES x (0 to 1 1.0
point)
mixture of lot sizes. However, there is
definitely a clustering of homes, as the plan
depicts a type of neo-traditionallayout at its
core consisting of small lots on alleys and
open spaces. In contrast, the plan depicts a
more traditionally lot layout along the street
on the north side of the lake. Additionally,
the plan shows a cluster of age-restricted
multi-family dwellings at the south end of the NO o (0 points)
.. site. The remaining site is either wooded,
landscape buffer, or lake; thus, the cluster of
neo-traditionallots does provide for a large
area of open space,
Transition Area Matrix
Page 6 of 7
C:\Documents and Settings\swhite\Desktop\_ T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc
e) Does the development use roadway and "hard
infrastructure" that is appropriate for its
design? Is it consistent with the vision and
recommendations of this area as expressed in YES 0 (0 to 1 1.0
the Comprehensive Plan? point)
Comments: Yes.
NO o (0 points)
DESIGN TOTAL 4.9
Insert in appropriate box on page 1
Transition Area Matrix
Page 7 of 7
C:\Documents and Settings\swhite\Desklop\.. T Amatrix-LBH-sjw.doc
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Change of Zoning District Classification
West side of Princess Anne Road
District 7
Princess Anne
May 10, 2006
REGULAR
Barry Knight: We will now go into the regular public hearing. Mr. Secretary, please call
the first item to be heard.
Joseph Strange: Thank you. The first item is item #12, LBH, L.L.c. An ordinance upon
Application of LBH, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-l
and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional R-lO Residential with a PD-H2 Planned
Unit Development District Overlay and B-IA Limited Business District on property
located on the west side of Princess Anne Road, approximately 1,950 southwest of
Sandbridge Road, District 7, Princess Anne, with eight proffers on the residential; five on
the restaurant; and five on the retail.
Barry Knight: Welcome.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon.
I'm a Virginia Beach attorney and it is my privilege to come before the Commission this
afternoon representing LBH, L.L.C. on this application for the proposed Sherwood Lakes
recreational community. This is a proffered rezoning application of an assemblage of
seven parcels totaling just under 240-acres. This large assemblage of property extends
form the west side of Princess Anne Road to the east side of Seaboard Road. The entirety
of this property is not located in any AICUZ noise zone. The property adjoins two large
subdivisions to our north, Highgate Greens and Three Oaks. Each of these were zoned
and developed in the Transition Area before there was such a thing as a Transition Area
in our Comprehensive Plan. These are two very, very nice residential communities,
which are similar to many dozens of other communities north of the Transition Area in
our city. Their densities are roughly two units per acre for Three Oaks and just under
three units per acre for Highgate Greens. In fact, if you look up on the Powerpoint, you
will see the lots in Highgates Green that abut us as well as well Three Oaks over here.
McNelly Lane is a sub-street from Highgate Greens that ends at the property border.
There are lots that are adjacent to this property in Highgate Greens. From a zoning
standpoint and a precedence standpoint, the location, the contextual circumstances of this
proposal parallel those of the Signature at West Neck, where in that case the applicant
assembled another large tract of land directly adjacent to Courthouse Estates. Courthouse
Estate is also another very nice large residential community that is located in the
Transition Area that was zoned and developed before there was.such a thing. They don't
meet the TAT AC Guidelines just as Highgate and Three Oaks do not. Courthouse
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 2
Estates was over three units per acre. I have provided you all with a copy of the staff
write up and evaluation of the Villages of West Neck application, which I may expound
on later, but again, this is the same type of situation here. In addition to sharing the
northern boundary with these two subdivisions, we also share a northern boundary with a
large parcel of property that the City recently acquired from the Hill Family, which upon
an elementary school has been constructed and most importantly, a 37-acre public park
will be created. That park is immediately adjacent to our northern lake, and if you could
put the Powerpoint plan up there, that public park will be located in this area on Princess
Anne Road. We have proposed to dedicate 4.3 acres of our property because of the large
scale of this development. It does not look like a lot when you look there but that is
actually 4.3 acres of land, which will bring that public park all the way to this northern
lake, which will be a public amenity and opened to the public, and rights to access it will
be provided to the City through that public park dedication that we will make with this
application. This lake, but the northern lake especially, will be created out of this large
borrow pit that EV Williams have operated on this property for decades. It will be 80
acres in size. That lake is located one half of a mile from the intersection of Princess
Anne Road and Sandbridge Road. We will be shaping it, sloping the banks, creating
benches. It will be available for non-motorized vessels such as sailing, kayaking, and
paddleboats. We are doing that instead of filling that borrow pit with an earth material.
We prefer !lot to have not to have more dump trucks coming down our way. There are
already dump trucks down there as it is. We prefer not to fill the lake with an earth
material. We prefer that it be transformed into this recreational amenity, and more
importantly, into a fantastic visual amenity as well, at the Gateway to the Transition Area,
and for the southern part of the City. It will be a truly unique fantastic open space that
extends two-thirds of a mile along Princess Anne Road. This Sherwood Lakes
community is 3,400 linear feet of frontage on Princess Anne Road or two-thirds of a mile.
Before I go any further, Bob Miller will be speaking also with regard to the water quality
in the lake, so I will leave for him to discuss water quality with regard to these lakes.
Along our two-thirds of a mile of frontage, we will be dedicating a I50-foot Transition
Area buffer to the City, landscaping it, and creating that beautiful amenity. In addition to
the ISO-foot Transition Area buffer, there will be an additional 60 to 150 feet of
landscape, open space, on the west side. It is just the buffer extended and will be
maintained by the Homeowners Association. So the open space along Princess Anne
Road will vary from 210 to 300 feet in width, and then beyond that will be these two
large lakes, an 80-acre lake and a 40-acre lake. We will be creating a multi-purpose trail,
10 feet wide, paved trail, all the way around the lake connecting also to Seaboard Road,
again only the trail connecting to Seaboard Road, and connecting to a pedestrian access to
McNelly Lane. This trail system will also connect across Princess Anne Road to the
development on the Munden Farm, which then connects to Heritage Park, and then to
Ashville Park so you will be able whether on foot, on bike, or on roller blades, to go
essentially from Back Bay or from the eastern end of Ashville Park all the way to
Seaboard Road with this development, and the other developments in the Transition Area
that will be taking place. Weare persevering a large forested natural area along our
western boundary extending roughly a third of a mile along Seaboard Road. None of that
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 3
will be touched. It will remain and we will be dedicating a 100-foot Transition Area
buffer along Seaboard Road in that area. There is no access to Seaboard Road from this
development other than the multi-purpose trail. In total, 75 percent of this community
will be open space, with 52 Y2 acres of green space and a 122 Y2 acres of lakes. There will
be one entrance to this community, a divided entryway from Princess Anne Road. We
have properly designed all the street sections within the community, as noted in the
proffers. The main entrance road features trees on both sides of the road, as well as the
multi-purpose trail along the northern side, and the 5-foot sidewalk adjacent to the
southern side. A feature of Sherwood Lakes, which is almost unique as the two lakes
themselves (that we propose to create rather than fIll in these borrow pits) is the unique
design of the residential component, which occupies a mere 25 percent of the almost 240
acres of land that we are seeking to rezone. Jim Arnhold, was on the TAT AC
Committee. His team has spent countless hours traveling, and researching exceptional,
award winning communities from South Carolina to Florida. They have met with
planners, architects, and public officials to ensure that the design elements, chiefly the
extensive use of alleys and rear loading garages, which are unique to Virginia Beach,
have been appropriately designed and will be successfully implemented. I think your
staff has reviewed this thoroughly and agree it is a well-designed project in that respect.
All the proposed single-family homes, 196 in total will have wide expansive front
porches on_the fIrst floor and second floor in many cases. They will all have setbacks
from the front property line between five and fifteen feet. They will all front on
sidewalks and open space in front of those sidewalks or in some cases sidewalks, street,
and lake. They will front on the lakes and none of the homes backup to the lake.
Typically, in our community most of the home sites on the water back up to water via
lakes or via Chesapeake Bay but in this case, we are not doing it that way. We believe
that this is a more open field to provide a greater sense of community and interaction
within the community. We proffered four great plans. You have all of those plans
dealing with cottage homes, and their size, and their values. We've also got an age
restriction component, 60 units and five buildings with elevators and parking underneath.
It is a long process that we have been in. It is a very complicated application. We've got
a lot of th!ngs to discuss. I think most of you are familiar with the proposal and its very
positive design element. The last thing that I want to talk to you about is the map that you
all should have that overlays these lakes on the Municipal Center. If I could just have
another minute or two to describe what is in your packages. If you were to stand today
back behind Zero's in the office park behind Zero's, across the street, where some of you
eat lunch occasionally, or behind Kellam and Eaton about 150 yards. If you were to look
north and you envisioned standing there right in the middle of Princess Anne Road,
looking north from there. You would actually be looking west from Princess Anne Road.
As you look to your right, the first home that you would see from back behind Zero's,
after looking across this open space and this lake, would be on the baseball diamond at
Kellam High School. If you look straight ahead, again from Princess Anne Road looking
straight ahead towards Seaboard Road, the homes that you would see would actually
come across the intersection of Nimmo and Princess Anne Road behind the Harris Teeter,
and the homes that you would see would be on the TPC Golf Course, the 14th Tee of the
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 4
TPC Golf Course. That gives you the size and the magnitude of this open space, this
vista, this viewshed that we are going to be creating along Princess Anne Road. It is
precisely that phenomenal view shed at this gateway to the Transition Area and to the
rural southern part of the City that led the TAT AC folks to think that the City ought to
acquire this property, and create such a recreational and open space amenity. The City
doesn't have the money to do that obviously, given all the other constraints with regard to
our open space funds and BRAC, and TAT AC. Mr. Arnhold, who was on that
committee, it is his desire to create that vision and help that vision to become a reality,
and n~t see dump trucks come down here for the next 15 years filling these pits with earth
materials so they would then be developable again as they were before it was a borrow
pit. I know that I am out of time. There are number of issues that I would like to discuss
but especially dealing with the scenarios that were discussed this morning in your
informal session with regard to the TATAC and the Transition Area Guidelines. I don't
know if you all want me to discuss those. I don't stand beyond my time.
Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon. if you would stand by for questions.
Eddie Bourdon: Sure.
Barry Knigpt: Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Ms. Katsias.
Kathy Katsias: I think. we should extend some time to let Mr. Bourdon explain.
Barry Knight: Would you like to ask that in a question of him as far as this concerned?
Kathy Katsias: Eddie, could you please?
Eddie Bourdon: I know a lot of us have wrestled with this, and I certainly have had lots
of discussions with Mr. Scott, and also with Kay this morning. It has been our position,
and we filed an application to do so, but it was never our desire to fill these borrow pits.
If these borrow pits were to be filled with earth material, they would be developable
acreage, just as they were before they were borrow pits. Because we prefer to get to the
point that I think that everyone wants us to be in and we have these beautiful recreational
and open space amenities, we did not want to go through this process of filling the pit to
turn around and come back with this same application to take some of the dirt back out of
the pit in order to create these lakes. It is there. We should take advantage of that
opportunity as opposed to leaving it as big holes in the ground. We also understand that
the Comprehensive Plan, which is not law, but the Comprehensive Plan suggests that the
density should be one unit per developable acre, but developable acre is not defined
anywhere. We have an appreciation for the fact that Section 200 of the Zoning Ordinance
was utilized by the staff in terms of trying to evaluate applications and has been utilized
to evaluate applications. I normally don't quarrel with that but we believe that is exactly
what the T AT AC Committee wanted to see happen. This was not discussed by TAT AC
with regard to borrow pits. There was discussion with regard to non-tidal wetlands
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 5
however. And with regard to non-tidal wetlands, the discussion was that since they were
developable because they could be filled with permits, that Section 200 made sense since
non-tidal wetlands are developable and count for density. Yet, we don't want people
developing those areas. We want those to be set aside and the properties to be clustered
elsewhere. Similarly, the borrow pits can be filled and developed. It is developable
acreage. We don't think there is a logical connection there. We think that it makes a lot
more sense to treat these as potential amenities and potential developable acreage. We
don't want to develop them. We are developing them. We don't prefer to develop them
with homes on them. We prefer to develop them as a recreational amenity as open space.
So, it is our firm belief that the Comprehensive Plan, which is not law, that the
Comprehensive Plan is your general guidance, that the Comprehensive Plan envisions
just this type of development, and it is exactly what we should be trying to achieve. In
Mr. Scott's memo to you all, it recognizes that is certainly something that may be
consistent with the vision that the Council and this body had when they adopted the
TATAC Guidelines, and that is exactly what we believe is the case. We think it would be
illogical to suggest that we should give density to non-tidal wetlands, but we should give
density to property that was high to begin with, and could be developable again by filling
it. We just don't think, and we are certain that was not something that TATAC took into
consideration or even discussed, but we do know that T AT AC desired that this be a
recreation~ amenity. In order to make that happen and in order for it to be economically
feasible to make that happen. we need to be able to utilize the property using that in some
form or fashion as density. We provided you with the way it was evaluated on the
Villages of West Neck where they had 2 Y2 units per acre, which was provided for that
assemblage of property in order to create a very unique and very valuable asset in the
Transition Area, the Arnold Palmer Signature Golf Course and all that went with it
granting that was all before TAT AC. It is still an example of a very significant
development in the Transition Area. And because we are in that area, there is a lot of
different time lines, and different types of development, but it also sets a precedent that
we think is applicable in this instance. We also think it is important to note that the
Transition Area is going to be something that all of us are going to thank the people who
led Virginia Beach over the course of the last number of years for creating this Transition
Area. It has been a long time. It goes all the way back to the Green Line for that matter.
This is going to be a jewel in the City's crown that will surpass most of the other jewels
in our crown. People just can't quite envision it yet because it is work in progress. It
doesn't look like it is going to look when it is done. I don't think it makes any sense to,
and our Comprehensive Plan scenario to suggest that this isn't what the TATAC
Committee and what our Comprehensive Plan is looking to try to achieve in this area.
We are also blocking off potential development of higher density development flowing
from Highgate Greens and Three Oaks, just as was done with Heron Ridge. The Heron
Ridge development where the City paid millions of dollars to acquire land to create that
golf course and help create that golf course, I should say along with the private sector,
and the homes that went with it, where it was in a way, in my estimation, blocking off the
development above it, Foxfire, from continuing south on higher density, non-Transition
Area development because of similar properties. The same is true with the Village of
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 6
West Neck and Courthouse Estates, and I would suggest that the same is true here with
the two developments above us. If we were to fill this pit and wait ten years or longer for
that to take place, I would suggest the pressure on our City over that period of time are
going to increase as we run out of land to bring greater density further south. Our belief
is that the best way to see that does not happen is to have the Transition Area take hold in
its entirety all the way across the northern tier of the Transition Area, so that we don't
have higher density development going south. We think this serves that purpose as well.
All the purposes that we believe the Comprehensive Plan ought to serve by this proposal.
Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon. Mr. Bernas.
Jay Bernas: So basically, what you are saying is that we should ignore Section 200 that
specifically identifies borrow pits as being excluded from density, and especially given
the fact that during the whole T AT AC process, I understand from staff that when the
members had asked how are we going to determine density in the Transition Area, they
told them Section 200.
Eddie Bourdon: My position on that Mr. Bernas is that Section 200 was put in our
Zoning Ordinance 30 years ago when we didn't have conditional zoning, number one.
We did not have a Transition Area, and we had, at its infancy, we probably had two
Comprehensive Plans. Planning was quite different in those days. It applies to, and it was
intended to apply to, what we now call straight unconditional zoning. The properties that
had zoning. But it only applies to residential or apartment zoned property. It was
intended to apply to those pieces of property that had zoning, straight zoning so that
someone owning a piece of property would not be able to, in essence, double up by
putting in a borrow pit. There are some other amenities to use the property and then
transfer or it could be wetlands transfer the density into high land. It makes perfectly
good sense in that context of applying to zoned property a zoning ordinance provision
that deals with the development of that property. As it pertains to this property, as we
propose to zone it, we are not transferring any density from the lakes to the borrow pits to
the dry land. What we have here is a Comprehensive Plan situation where we came up
with a concept by which we are trying to limit the density so that open space and
recreation are the key component. We want to limit the density to one unit per
developable acre. As Mr. Scott has indicated, there is no definition of developable acre
anywhere in our Comprehensive Plan. It does not exist. The Comprehensive Plan is not
our zoning ordinance. But what Bob apparently indicated was that in determining what
was developable, they would look at Section 200 of the Zoning Ordinance for guidance,
because that is what a Comprehensive Plan is -- guidance. It is not the law. It is
guidance. I don't dispute that discussion took place, and that was said. I know that it was
discussed with respect to non-tidal wetlands, which did get discussion by the TAT AC
Committee, and was the focus of some back and forth on how to do it. But as has been
stated previously today with regard to the borrow pit issue it was never something
contemplated with regard to borrow pits. The conversation that did take place with
regard to borrow pits had to do with the desire to see those borrow pits utilized as
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 7
recreational open space amenities. I think Mr. Scott has laid forth in his memorandum to
you a means by which, because it is a Comprehensive Plan issue, a means that this body
and City Council can certainly ascertain that the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is best
served by what is being proposed with this application. We had contemplated, and had an
application pending for a long time, to fill, which the city has, to fill these borrow pits
with an earth material. In order to make it clear that were we today to be dealing with the
property that had not been dug out or were dealing with a property that we are going to
fill and then create these lakes, it would meet the TAT AC requirements. So that is the real
dilemma here. I provided you a copy of an application that was approved less than three
years ago to fill a borrow pit and put 190 residential apartment units on there. It was
approved. Rightfully so, as it was a good application. That is simply to point out that
borrow pits are not considered to be "off limits" to developments. You can fIll a borrow
pit and develop it. That could be done here. Our point is we don't need to go through
that charade of filling something that we really don't want to fIll. We would rather create
the amenity immediately as opposed to going through that long process just so we would
then be developable under Section 200, and then we could get the density. Again, this is
not legal. This is a Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan level is purely
guidance and not law, and that is why nothing needs to be changed as far as Section 200
is concerned. All that needs to happen is that this body and eventually City Council must
make a de!ennination as to whether they believe that what is being proposed is something
that is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Again, Section 200, we
didn't bring up the idea of changing Section 200. That was never anything we
contemplated. Our point is that Section 200 is a Zoning Ordinance provision that applies
to zoned property, and not to say it is wrong to have pulled it out and used it as a way, a
means, of determining what is a developable acre from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint.
But I think that for a Comprehensive Plan issue that is solely limited to the Transition
Area that we can and should evaluate whether that really fits what we are trying to do
with the Transition Area where we have these borrow pits.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Ms. Anderson.
Janice Anderson: Yes. You had mentioned the neighbors right next door. I believe you
said one.was two plus density and one was three plus? On your application you have two
and a half. Is that going to be reduced a little bit, and what will the result be for this?
Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry. Three Oaks is actually just under two units per acre, and
Highgate is just under three.
Janice Anderson: Okay.
Eddie Bourdon: When I was talking about more than three that was Courthouse Estates.
Janice Anderson: Okay.
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 8
Eddie Bourdon: We have proposed 256 units, including 16 that are age-restricted. The
staff has run, which you all have a matrix on the proposal in which they have determined
that it would not gamer the full amount, which is what 256 would be because of the age-
restricted. They have suggested that if the Commission, and eventually Council, wants to
take the position that creating these amenities is what the Comprehensive Plan is really
desiring to create here, that number would be reduced. They did so because there is no
natural feature that would preserve other than the trees on Seaboard Road. They don't get
any credit for creating the lakes. We're not quarreling with that; so, it would be reduced
to 240 under the matrix that the staff ran. We certainly are not going to quarrel with that,
but that is deemed to be a prudent way to develop. We don't have any problem with
doing that. If we did reduce the number, we would reduce those by requcing 16 of the
cottage homes, which are the smaller ones and we would keep the age-restricted portion
of the cOInmunity, because we think it is important to have the intergenerational
community that T AT AC speaks of and wants to achieve in the Transition Area.
Janice Anderson: So, that number, the 240 that was put in the report, that kind of matches
the next -door density?
Eddie Bourdon: Yeah. If you don't take the borrow pits into consideration at all, it would
still be les~ than the adjacent properties. That is correct. If you give the credit for the two
for one age-restricted, it would be less than the adjacent.
Janice Anderson: Thank you.
Eddie Bourdon: Sorry for the long answer to it.
Janice Anderson: That's okay.
Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon, your neighbor to the northeast, David Hill, he called me and
said that with the elementary school, the borrow pits, and with some of the farming
operations, he has some drainage concerns on there. I believe he spoke to the developer,
. .
and the developer said "Don't worry, I'm going to look out for you". The developer is an
honorable man, I know. Have you had any further discussions on Mr. Hill's drainage?
Eddie Bourdon: Actually, Mr. Miller is here to talk about the water quality. He might be
a better person to discuss than, and I but I have no doubt whatsoever that we will take
care of the City and or Mr. Hill's drainage issues. I know there are some drainage issues
out there with regard to not having easements and what have you. We are prepared to
provide the necessary relief. Mr. Miller can best discuss that.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bernas.
Jay Bernas: Maybe you or Bob can address what we were talking about in our earlier
session about water quality. Maybe he can address two issues. One is public health. In
Item #12
LBH, L.L.C.
Page 9
fact, that these lakes will be used for stormwater management facilities and that there is a
lot of runoff and nobody knows what the chloroform levels will be in the lake. So how
can you get density from a recreational area if you don't know for sure you can use it?
Lake Trashmore is an example with the suspended boating operations there. My other
thing that maybe he can remember to address, is this issue of public safety. Typically,
with borrow pits they have extremely steep side slopes in borrow pit operation. What I
don't know, and it is not clear in the plan in the application at this point, is if you got a
little kid walking along the edge, and you got a lot of trails, someone falls in, 50 feet
deep, there is no general slope. My concern, to address this issue at this point, is that there
is nothing in the Site Plan Ordinance to convert a borrow pit into a recreational lake, and
so if he could speak to some of the things that you are doing? I know you are required to
do a 5 to 1 slope on the exit strategy for the borrow pit, but how can you allay the public
safety concern with regard to the slopes of the borrow pit and with depth?
Eddie Bourdon: I don't want to steal Bob's thunder. We have discussed some of the
questions that you raised earlier. The one thing that I do want to, and I am to some degree
going to steal some of his thunder, the chloroform level in the Lynnhaven River is
actually higher than in most of the BMPs in the city, and those are very small. This lake
that you described is not going to be an issue. In fact, we were planning on using
forebays. We can even direct all the stormwater to the southern lake for that matter. I
will let him discuss that issue in greater detail.
Barry Knight: Any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you. Mr. Secretary.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Bob Miller.
Barry Knight: Welcome Bob.
Robert Miller: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission.
Barry Kn.ight: Please state your name for the record.
Robert Miller: I remembered that part. I'm Bob Miller. I'm a professional civil engineer
with MSA. We will go ahead with what Jay was asking. I think one of the biggest
things, and the reason why I brought this picture, is try to demonstrate that when we talk
about these two areas, we are talking about lakes, Weare not talking about borrow pits.
You can stop talking about borrow pits. We are talking about effective lakes. The size of
these two lakes, again Eddie gave you the overlay that we did for the Courthouse area, but
if you look at Lake James, and I know that Joe is very familiar with that, is the size of
approximately the larger lake. Lake Christopher will be the size of the smaller lake, You
can get in context that these are huge lakes. These are very big lakes. They are
wonderful for recreation. It is very, very good for water quality and for the environment
in total too. The way we are going to handle a couple of things, and just let me go
through the water quality issue. The water quality and Public Works has standards as you
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 10
know, of course you know because I deal with them all the time too, Public Works
standards are about six different things. They deal with runoff, and we will deal with Mr.
Hill and or the City park property with regard to stormwater management for those
facilities. This will be a regional BMP. That was always a great intention that we had.
Jay referred to the fact that we have a lot of engineering BMPs allover the City.
Sometimes along VDOT projects, we get a little one acre site at comers and things like
that truly are difficult to maintain, and sometimes not as effective because they are not
well maintained. The wonderful advantage of this type of a system is that it is already 50
feet deep. The groundwater is about 10 feet down; so, it will be 40 feet of water.
V olumetrically, that means that at the bottom where the sediments would be, the first one
inch of rain is what we concern our self within engineering theory, but actually even after
that, there is a certain amount of sediment and pollutants that come along. They will
settle at the bottom. We have a huge volume of aerobic area, a thick layer, which is better
than 35 feet deep. That area will support all kinds of waterfowl and water life, that would
be fish and so forth. This one big lake is 1000 feet across; so, if you can think of
stormwater management, that is really a minor part of this. Water quality is the biggest
part. The outfall is into a ditch system that goes down through Heron Ridge to West
Neck Creek and eventually into the North Landing River. In that watercourse, what we
will be putting in there is water that will be very, very clean, free of sediment, free of
pollutants._ I'm not going anywhere, because Ed just stopped me.
Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree will sponsor you.
Robert Miller: Thank you.
Eugene Crabtree: Whatever time he needs.
Robert Miller: The bank stabilization. What we will do is that we will have 5 to 1 slopes
or better. We will use some benching. We talked about some environmental benching
which will be beneficial again to the overall ecology of the lake. It will be a great
showplace. It will be an opportunity for people to come out and see what that means at
an environment like the park and the recreational activities out here. The 5 to 1 slope-
we will hydro seed that. The groundwater, like I said, is about 10 feet down. That will
still leave us 40 feet of depth of lake. This, again, is just a great asset for the community.
The body of water, and I mentioned it before, will be very aerobic. I will just mention
that one more time. Again, we don't think you can find a better quality of water once you
have this filled, then you will have in this situation in our city right now. Eddie referred
to Lynnhaven, and I'm on Lynnhaven 2007, and truly, we have some work to do there.
That is a very important project, which we are going to succeed in, but we do have some
people with issues there. The smaller BMPs again, and I will go back to that, if you look
up at Highgate Green, which is adjacent, you can see some smaller BMPs. When you do
the smaller BMPs, if you have waterfowl and other issues, they actually do have a great
affect. Most of the time we are not but 6 to 8 feet deep in most of those cases. That
allows us to be able to put those systems in, but it also says that depth doesn't allow for a
Item #12
LBH, L.L.C.
Page 11
lot of flexibility where you get a great inrush of waterfowl for some reason. Just across
the street, Munden Farm was just approved, and that has smaller BMPs. The smaller
BMPs are not bad, but they are actually nowhere near the water quality that we are talking
about in these two lakes. Ashville Farms, if you think about Heritage Park, those are all
great systems as far as the design goes. They will work very, very well. This is much
better. It is natural existence, as lakes, like these are going to be quite a bit better than the
downstream, and the only thing that I will mention there, just to finalize, is that the
amount of the hydrodynamics of that course of water. What happens is, in that creek that
goes down through Heron Ridge, is that there is species growing along the way. Again, if
you are carrying sediments or pollutants and things like that, the likelihood is that you are
going to damage some of it. We will be providing very, very clean water that will outfall
into that existing watercourse, and it will be very beneficial to the growth and the stability
of that watercourse. With that, I think I have answered your questions, but I will be
happy to answer them further if I have not.
Barry Knight: Mr. Bernas.
Jay Bernas: Are both lakes going to be considered to be dedicated to the City for regional
BMPs or only the south lake?
Robert Miller: Both lakes will be dedicated. They are both part of the system.
Jay Bernas: As stormwater management facilities?
Robert Miller: Obviously. They can both be stormwater management. Now, we can, as
Eddie indicated, you could segregate it and say we can have one part be in the smaller
lake, and that would be the primary stormwater management facility, but the depth of
these two lakes, I just have no concern with that. Weare not talking 6 to 8 feet. Weare
talking 40 feet, and we are talking about a life process of these lakes that just cannot be __
and I don't even know how to properly put the qualification on the quality of the water.
Jay Bernas: It was my understanding that the lakes were going to be maintained by the
Homeowners Association; so, it is going to be by the Homeowners Association or is it
going to be dedicated to the City?
Robert Miller: I will let Eddie speak.
Eddie Bourdon: They will be owned by the Homeowners Association, but as far as
drainage easements are concerned, we can engineer those that the drainage goes all way
into the southern lake or we can use both. Both of these will be owned by the
Homeowners Association, and the public will have the right to utilize the northern lake
for recreational purposes, and the multi-purpose trail that totally encircles it will be for
the public, as is the park site there. It will be part of the park for all intents and purposes.
We would dedicate it to the City, but I don't think the City wants the lake. We will
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 12
maintain the lake, but we can have the easement for drainage in the lake, and if we do use
it for any drainage, we will also anticipate putting in forebays where those outfalls might
be, as another means of making sure we don't have sediment going into the lake. But the
northern lake will be available for public recreational use. It will be posted "Not for
Swimming", but for all types of boating activities, those will be perrititted.
Barry Knight: Mr. Bernas.
Jay Bernas: What, other than the sludge factor, at the bottom of the lake with the aerobic
bacteria are you going to be doing? Are you going to be planting wetland grasses? Are
you going to try to create other areas for an opportunity to develop the ecosystem to help
with the water quality?
Robert Miller: Well, primarily that will be limiting it to benching around the lake. Yes, I
just said a few minutes ago, we are going to do some benching. We have not identified
the exact amount of it, but, in other words, there will be opportunities all around the lake
to be able to do aquatic benching that will be beneficial to the environment of the whole
lake. I will do that. I don't think that is an issue. We have done that before. We have
done it to some of the lakes at Ashville Park and at Heritage Park. So it is a common use
of providiJ:?g a good environment to help get the stormwater runoff and so forth to be able
to filter prior to getting into the waters in the lake. The bottom is not anaerobic bottom. I
don't want to imply that the sediment and so forth goes to the bottom. It is not like the
typical situation, because it is not going to be so shallow. When we talk about
maintaining these lakes, I think the majority of the maintenance on this lake would be the
stabilization around the banks and so forth, and maybe some of these benches. I don't see
anybody coming in to dredge these lakes anytime perhaps, considering the depth.
Barry Knight: Mr. Henley.
AI Henley: I have a question for Mr. Bourdon. The lake is going to be owned by the
Homeowners Association, so any liability associated on this body of water will be at
liability of the Homeowners Association and not a liability to the City of Virginia Beach
even though the public will be using it. Is that correct?
Eddie Bourdon: That would be our interpretation at this point. Yes.
Al Henley: Thank you.
Eddie Bourdon: Let me also mention that Barry Frankenfield and the folks at Parks and
Recreation have expressed to us on numerous occasions that they are very, very, very
anxious to have this opportunity presented. They are very enthusiastic about the
opportunity to utilize this lake, which unlike the lake at Mount Trashmore, which was
initially meant for this type of activity, we are not next to a dump. We don't have those
issues that exist with regard to those that have come to exist with Mount Trashmore. The
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 13
water out of this borrow pit has been discharged into that body that Mr. Miller was
describing that goes into the North Landing River for 20 plus years. It is the same
groundwater that is going to recharge this lake, and that groundwater has not polluted the
North Landing River. That is for sure. That is one of the more vibrant bodies of water
and rivers that we have in our city and in our commonwealth for that matter. It is the
same groundwater that is going to be recharging this lake.
Barry Knight: Mr. Henley, are you done?
AI Henley: Yes. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Mr. Bernas.
Jay Bernas: As a follow-up to AI's comment or question, you mentioned that Barry in
Parks and Recreation was excited about this project. Has the developer offered to
dedicate the lake for recreation to the City?
Eddie Bourdon: Yes. Absolutely.
Jay Bema~: And what did the City say?
Eddie Bourdon: I don't think the City wants to have the liability of maintaining the lake
or having the liability of owning the lake. You have to ask them.
Jay Bernas: But the offer was made?
Eddie Bourdon: Yes. Absolutely.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Gene Hanson.
Barry Knight: We1come Gene.
Gene Hanson: Mr. Knight. Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, I would like to say
one thing about the Transition Area Advisory Committee first.
Barry Knight: Identify yourself.
Gene Hanson: I'm sorry. Gene Hanson. I sat on that Committee. I did not miss any
meetings. I did not miss any Committee meetings. The term Section 200 was never
brought up. The vision that we had as the Transition Area Committee was that there were
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 14
three borrow pits in the Transition Area. You are looking at two of them now. We were
hoping that the City would end up buying those borrow pits, and turn them it into a
municipal park. Now without having to dip into the coffers of the City, we are having the
opportunity for Jim Arnhold and his group to provide precisely what the Transition Area
Committee wanted to occur right there. Now talking about what I was really coming to
say, and I'll be happy to address any of the comments. I don't think that it was
documented ever that the words "Section 200" was presented. But we did discuss these
borrow pits. It was assumed that they were going to be municipal parks. I'm here to talk
not so much about the attributes of exactly what Mr. Bourdon put forward because he
missed the word "horses". I'm not going to add anything more, but horses will be using
the multi-purpose trails. I can promise you that. But I would like to address the people
who are involved here, which to me is always primary in my mind. I own a horse farm
not too terribly away from here. I'm on something called the Pungo Village Land Owners
Association Committee. I'm also President of the Back Bay-Pungo Civic League. So
what occurs down in this neck of the city is keen in my mind. I think that after serving
with Jim Arnhold on the Transition Area Advisory Committee and watching him as a
developer ensure that area was going to be well protected. Jim was one of the vocal
people saying one unit per developable acre. Not one per acre but developable acre. I
had a wonderful time working with him, and I know he would certainly assure us that the
goals of th_at Transition Area Committee would be fulfilled. I not only feel that in my
heart, but before last year, before this plan came into fruition, he also came before the
City's Bikeways and Trails Committee. I'm fortunate enough to be sitting on that
Committee at the present time. He just didn't tell us what he wanted to do. He came to
this Committee asking us what we could do as the Bikeways and Trails Commission to
enhance the recreation potential of this development that he has proposed. I think overall
this would be a nice development for the area. . It fits in with linkage and you could use
that buzzword for the areas across the street. I have seen how the trails work. I'm very
much in support of it. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Barry Knight: Are there any questions of Mr. Hanson? Thank you Gene.
Gene Hanson: I would like to add one thing. I do know how old he is too because we
went to high school together. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary.
Joseph Strange: Okay. The next speaker, speaking in opposition, is Michele Cleland.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am.
Michele Cleland: Hello.
Barry Knight: Please identify yourself.
Item #12
LBH, L.L.C.
Page 15
Michele Cleland: My name is Michele Cleland. I am a resident of Highgate Greens. I
appreciate the opportunity to address you all today. I agree wholeheartedly with the staff
recommendation of non-approval. I guess due to the density guidelines not being met. I
realize, as I was reminded several times this morning, they are guidelines and not laws.
But hopefully as far as the citizens go, they are guidelines that we would take very
seriously. I did have a couple of things that I don't understand, and maybe some
following same conversations with the developers, these issues would be brought to bare
is that for one, I don't understand the calculations that being in Highgate Greens and
looking at our community, where our smallest lot is 12,000 square feet and our largest
lots are Y2 acre, how our density could be so much higher than what's being proposed. I
realize -- that is something that I think would need to be conveyed to $e surrounding
neighborhoods. I also like to note the traffic figures in the package that we were able to
look at. I'm assuming that only looking at the Princess Anne Road entrance and just
doing a little bit of math, there appears there is a 25 percent increase in Average Daily
Trips. There would be existing conditions, and as somebody who has to make average
daily trips in this area, that is pretty substantial. These people who are going to live here
are not going to be going to Pungo, I do not believe, on a daily basis. They are going to
be up Seaboard Road or they are going to be going up Princess Anne to get to General
Booth. If any of you all have tried to go down those corridors at certain times of the day,
I would le~ you know that I cannot make a right turn, much less a left turn out of my
neighborhood at certain times of the day. You just have to wait. So, I just wanted to give
you a personal feel for that. Terming Princess Anne Road as a minor suburban artery is a
little bit misleading. It is pretty major to me. I also like to draw attention to the
recommendations that were made by the Department of Agriculture. I believe the
recommendation to preserve the area adjoining the northern boundary is really not
Highgate Greens. It is an existing open space that the City owns. It is an excellent
suggestion, and that would be the northern perimeter of the Sherwood Lakes proposed
development. I also believe that it would have bearing on another concern that was raised
by the Department of Agriculture, which was the drainage in the north. The open space
that is owned and maintained by the City behind me does not drain well. We all have OUf
backs of (mf yards drain into this. I can imagine the way that this looks that these folks
will also have the back of their yards draining. It is something definitely that I would
hope that the Commission would consider and the staff would consider. May I have one
more minute please?
Barry Knight: Yes.
Michele Cleland: Thank you. It also impacts the local schools. I know we heard a lot
about the borrow pits, but these are quality of life issues. I'm not against development. I
knew that when I purchased my home. And I was hoping that it would be a nice
development behind us. But Ijust wanted to say that these are already overcrowded
schools. I believe Kellam is about 30 percent over capacity now. So lastly, Ijust ask the
Commission to please accept the Planning staff s recommendation. Thank you.
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 16
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Cleland? Thank you ma'am
for coming forward.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker in opposition is Laura Sisino.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Please state your name for the record.
Laura Sisino: Laura Sisino. I am here to oppose the plans for Sherwood Lakes mainly for
the high density of the 2.1 per developable acre. I realize that there is a lot of question in
the Princess Anne Transition Guidelines on what is a developable acre. I think that really
has to be figured out. Because if this gets through, that sets precedent for everybody else
that will follow. I have a petition for you. I have a total of 99 names that are opposed to
this because it is not in keeping with the density. There is just too much on here that is
just part of the Section 200 Zoning Ordinance. If we go back to that, it does say that
these borrow pits are not considered developable land. You know if an option is to wait
ten years to fill it, then maybe that is what we need to do. I think it is great to have the
lakes for the public and open space. I think that is an awesome thing, but there is just too
many houses on the land that is actually developable. And that is going to overburden
our schools and our roads. I mean Princess Anne and Seaboard Roads can't handle all of
this traffic._ I personally feel that the developers who purchase property should know
what the guidelines are and what the limitations are. Whether there are laws or not. They
should know what they are getting into. Your job is to make sure that you adhere to these
guidelines and you let them stick to them. So, I hope to make sure that we can figure out
that little fine line that everyone is questioning on what is a developable acre. So, I'm
going to hand out more petitions. You guys have them in your package, and my letter.
Thank you.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Okay. The next speaker in opposition is Scott Lovell.
Barry Knight: Welcome sir.
Scott Lovell: Good afternoon.
Barry Knight: Please state your name for the record.
Scott Lovell: My name is Scott Lovell. I am the Chair of the Legislative Committee for
Highgate Greens. I think we had a little bit of procedural mix up. I was not sure exactly
what was considered the representative for the opposition, so I was hoping for a little bit
more time than three minutes. Some of the things that I was going to discuss have
already been mentioned. So I am going to try to keep that brief. I am, like I said the
Legislative Committee Chairman for Highgate Greens. I have been involved with the
Board of Directors of Highgate Greens for nine years. Over that time we have seen
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 17
development just going rapid in our part of the area with not a lot of support of
infrastructure being built, primarily roads. It kind of leads to one of the reasons why I
was asked to speak for the group, because I am also a civil engineer and I am involved in
the transportation industry. I have been involved in the transportation industry in
Hampton Roads for about 20 years. And, in the 20 years that I have been involved with
transportation, I haven't seen the type of crisis that we are facing in this state with regards
to transportation that we are currently facing. When I moved in to Highgate Greens nine
years ago, I expected that I would be driving on Nimmo Parkway today. I can tell
everybody here today that I am involved with that project, and it is currently not
scheduled for advertisement for construction until 2009 and we won't drive on it until
2012. And that road is continually touted as the saving grace for the Transition Area.
But by 2012, it is going to have little affect on the. traffic along the two lane stretch of
Princess Anne Road, where we front, just because of all this development that is going on
out there. So that was one of the main reasons, and that is one of the key reasons why we
are here in opposition to this is because the Comprehensive Plan and the TATAC
Guidelines were established to try to manage growth in the Transition Area, and partially
because of the problems with transportation out in that part of the City. So, we would
really hate to see the chipping away, as you will, at those guidelines because of that
density issue. You heard a lot about that already so I am not going belabor that issue.
But I also _wanted to mention some other things with regards to the development and why
we are in opposition to it. It is really because of the compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhoods. Nowhere will you see existing neighborhoods - Three Oaks, Highgate
Greens or proposed neighborhoods - Heritage Park, Munden Park, Ashville Park with the
type of lots and home site that Mr. Arnhold is proposing here. You are not going to see a
5,000 square foot lot in any of these neighborhoods. Regardless of how the density is
calculated, these are inconsistent. You are not going to find rear-loading cottage homes
in any of these developments. It is very inconsistent with the types of development that
are in the surrounding area. I see the timer light.
Barry Knight: Mr. Lovell, we will give you a few more minutes.
Scott Lovell: Thank you. I appreciate that. I want to say that we are not opposed to a
development here. We have met with Mr. Arnhold and some of his folks, and they have
been very accommodating to some of our concerns. We just are opposed to the density of
the development that he has proposed here. It has got some v,ery attractive elements and
amenities that are going to be great for our community, the lakes in particular. But
chipping away at those Transition Area Guidelines right now is not a good idea in light of
the transportation issues that we are seeing across the state. Not just here in Virginia
Beach, but across the state. So, I would really be concerned with that. As I mentioned,
Mr. Arnhold has met with our community association. He came to one of our meetings
and met with our Board of Directors, and with some of the folks on McNelly Lane who
will be connected to Sherwood if, in fact, this goes forward. I just wanted to state for the
record some of the things that Mr. Arnhold has offered up as concessions on the plan.
One is the elimination of the vehicular connection to McNelly Lane, which I think is on
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 18
the current plan, some concealing of the pedestrian walkway between McNelly Lane and
Sherwood Lakes, the addition of landscape buffers between the home sites and Highgate
Greens and Sherwood Lakes, elimination of any common property lines. There have
been some other items that have been requested. No parking signs on McNelly Lane for
the park. Those have been documented, and I believe everyone has received letters. Our
letter as an Association, and there have been some individual letters from homeowners on
McNelly Lane. So in the event that a development in this area is allowed to move
forward, we asked those elements be maintained. 1 want to state once again that we really
would oppose this, and we would love to see Mr. Arnhold come back with a revised plan
that is more consistent with the surrounding area, and that is a little bit closer to the
density recommendations of the Transition Area Guidelines. I believe, if he came back
with something that had more of the 10,000 square foot executive homes, to quote Mr.
Bourdon; "I think you have a neighborhood view that would shine a little bit brighter as a
jewel and as that Transition Area Gateway". There is no need for this type of density
here. Just a couple of other points I would like to make. I was at the work session this
morning, and Mr. Bernas raised a couple of very good points, and Ijust wanted to address
those real quick. He raised the issue that this could potentially be used as precedent for
other developers to kind of play with the density recommendation of those guidelines. I
would have to say that we would all be fooling ourselves if we didn't think that was going
to be the c~se. The other issue that he brought up was what the public perception would
be if, in fact, we deviated from the recommendation of those TAT AC Guidelines. I can
tell you that I have spoken with representatives of several of the Homeowners
Associations in the surrounding area. The perception would be that those guidelines are
somewhat toothless. I think it would be a very bad precedent to set at this time. What I
would like just to, in closing, say is that we would love to see a development here. The
issues with the lakes and all, I know they would be worked out. As a civil engineer, I can
understand what Mr. Miller was talking about with regards to runoff and all. I think they
would be a wonderful amenity. I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, if you will,
in this case, and have a community that provides those amenities that they were looking
for in the TAT AC Guidelines but also with a neighborhood that is more consistent with
the surrounding development.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Lovell. Are there any questions? Thank you sir.
Joseph Strange: That is all the speakers.
Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I appreciate the comments of all the
speakers from Highgate and especially Mr. Lovell, and I would point out the fact that Mr.
Arnhold has spent a considerable amount of time with the residents of Highgate. You all
have letters. We even provided letters in your package from the folks on McNelly Lane.
The first thing that 1 want to mention is there appears to be a couple of comments
especially those from Michele Cleland. And it was sort of echoed by Mr. Lovell that lot
Item #12
LBH, L.L.C.
Page 19
size equates to density, and I don't think that is the case. I know this Commission
certainly recognizes that. We and the TATAC and the city as a whole, especially the
Transition Area, one of the things that is urged is that we have a variation of housing
types, and that we not just have the large estate brick homes. And that is exactly what
this provides. There are homes similar to this, although not in great abundance, in
Ashville Park, and certainly there is a neo-traditional segment of the development, I
apologize, I can't remember the name of it that we approved a number of years ago down
here at West Neck Road for the Overton Family, that has a segment with some alleys and
rear loading garages. The density issue doesn't have to do with the size of the lot. I
would say that the lots that are closest to Highgate are all 11,000 square foot lots. There
are none of the cottage homes are located there. Cottage isn't used. It is a derogatory
term. In fact, those homes that you see in the elevations in the plans, those homes will
sell $400,000; so, definitely they are not inexpensive homes. The landscape buffers and
the elimination of common property lines, we've done all of those things that have been
discussed with the folks at Highgate. We don't control putting no parking signs on the
roads in Highgate. Those issues -- we don't oppose what they might want to do there.
We will be doing a traffic impact study. It is one of the things proffered, as is the same
currently with regard to Ashville Park. And we do anticipate there will be improvements
made to Princess Anne as a consequence on both of those developments. Our entrance to
Princess ~nne Road is about three quarters of a mile from the intersection of the Princess
Anne and Sandbridge intersection where it shows a four-lane divided highway. All
development in the Transition Area will be tax positive, and it will absolutely help add to
the financial resources to the City to improve the roads that do need to be improved, and
we certainly all agree with Mr. Lovell that Nimmo Parkway is long overdue. We
certainly expect it to be built hopefully, if not by before 2012, certainlyby then. This is
the type of development that would pay for those road improvements that need to be
made, and Princess Anne Road is not a dangerous road. It is a straight road from here to
Sandbridge - from where we are to Sandbridge Road, and from there it is a four-lane
highway. We will be making improvements to Princess Anne Road based on what the
traffic impact study requires. I know that I am out of time. I could say a little bit more.
Barry Knight: I am sure we have some questions for you Mr. Bourdon. Are there any
questions for Mr. Bourdon?
John Waller: I have a concern about the roads and transportation. This thing is going to
improve the road in front of your project. Is Parks going to do a little bit on their side of
the road? Who is going to take care of the big picture? That road should have a four-lane
highway with a median down the middle. So, two-lanes, dump trucks, and school buses,
and if you're lucky enough to be able to get your SUV on there, on Sandbridge Road.
What is going to happen?
Eddie Bourdon: You're asking the wrong person that question Mr. Waller. I know you
appreciate putting me on the spot with that one. I think some of it is rhetorical. I will say
this. I have no doubt whatsoever that the individuals exiting this community, which isn't
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 20
going to be built overnight, we are talking a few years down the road anyway with regard
to what all has to take place here, but the folks that will be entering Princess Anne Road
will certainly have an easier time getting out of their neighborhood than the folks do
getting out of Highgate Greens on to that section of Princess Anne Road. I wouldn't
quarrel with that at all. We will be making improvements as dictated by the traffic impact
studies, which I am certain will include some widening and some turn lanes at our
entrance. You don't get the second borrow pit until the end of this calendar year, and
with the process being what it is, it will be a number of years we will be seeing traffic
coming out of this development. Ashville Park, which is already under construction -
that will be well in advance of anything we will be doing as far as homes on this property.
But those are decisions that obviously will be made by the City Council, and those are
issues with regard to funding. That is what the Transition Area does. It provides the
opportunity that we can pay for more of our own roads because getting the money from
Richmond is tough to do these days.
John Waller: Mr. Scott, what is City's plan for improving Princess Anne Road?
Robert Scott: This section of Princess Anne Road.
John Wall~r: That is the section from there to Sandbridge. Does the City have any plans
to do anything with it?
Robert Scott: Well, as with all of our road plans, were finding it more and more difficult
because of reduced funding. So, a general statement is that most of these projects are
being pushed back in time. In some cases, considerably back in time. So although it is
the desire to do the necessary improvements to some of these roads, part of them are
capacity issues and part of them are alignment issues. There are very bad curves in them
in some cases that just need to be straightened out and things like that. In any case, and
the truth of it Mr. Waller is that we are finding it extremely difficult because of lack of
funding. We keep on schedule with these improvements so they are being pushed back.
Eddie Bourdon: I appreciate where the folks in Highgate are coming from because the
section of Princess Anne Road in front of Highgate is far more difficult today because of
the traffic coming to the Courthouse and the traffic heading towards Chesapeake and vice
versa. It is much, much more congested there than this section of Princess Anne Road. I
really don't have any heartburn that this development in the Transition Area
developments will be able to be adequately accommodated on this section of Princess
Anne Road with the improvements that will come along with them. I cannot sit here and
quarrel with the fact that getting out of Highgate Greens on that section of Princess Anne
Road is and can be a bear during the peak traffic hours.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you sir.
Eddie Bourdon: You're welcome.
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 21
Barry Knight: We're going to close the public comment session. We're going to open it
up for discussion amongst the Commissioners. Ms. Wood.
Dorothy Wood: Thank you. It is a pleasure to see a development of this quality in our
City. Very rarely do I open the paper and see the Virginian-Pilot talking about our
development and our developers. May I just read, please, just a couple of sentences. This
is from March 20, 2006, where the Editorial page said, "Virginia Beach residents have
learned to be wary of developers bearing gifts, especially ones with long strings attached,
And so it is with Sherwood Lakes, a project intending to reclaim two exhausted sand
mines on Princess Anne Road. In this instance, the snap judgment is reliable. After
extensive grading, two lakes would dominate a neighborhood of cottage style family
homes and condos for seniors. The lakes, at 40 and 80 acres would be owned and
maintained by the homeowners. But the Green Belt around them would be given over to
everyone for strolling, biking, boating, kite-flying or just lying around on a blanket. By
comparison, the main lake at Mount Trashmore is slightly less than 40 acres". Following
up on what Mr. Hansen said, they also say "this is a handsome gift, one that comes at no
charge to the taxpayers." They end their editorial by saying "an exception for Sherwood
Lakes ought to be granted if it is clear that the public is getting the biggest favor and not
the developer". Another part of this development that pleases me is the front porches. I
know that _when I was a child, people sat on the front porches and all of your neighbors
knew each other. They took care of each other. They took care of the children. I love to
see the neighborhood concept that Sherwood Lakes is bringing back to our city. I have
known Mr. Arnhold for over 25 years, and I know the quality of his development. It is
my pleasure to support the development, and when time comes, I will be happy to make
the motion. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: Obviously the issue is do we connect the lakes to the land or the land to
the lakes? That is the issue. I guess we have all wrestled with that more than anything
else. The application seems to be a good application. This is not thefrrst time that we've
had a philosophical discussion. We had it at Heritage Park, when we were talking about
their equ.estrian amenity, and that was disconnected from the residential portion, and
should we consider that, and maybe that was pre- TAT AC, but it was the same kind of
concept that we had. We were trying to get to an open space equation. Whether you
looked at it from that point and not as another story. We have the same kind of example
at Heron's Ridge. No, it wasn't Heron's Ridge. It was a little, and I can't remember. It
was a few months ago. We had a project right next to Heron's Ridge. It was about 6 or 7
lots that abutted the golf course. But the golf course open space didn't count. I couldn't
quite understand that, because if it is open space, it is open space. I realize that you have
to get it on to your site, and the developer is trying to meet that. I think they have worked
that out if I am not mistaken. That is an example when you're disconnected from the land
but not. Here you have this borrow pit that is going to turn into a lake. I think, if you
didn't have the public connection that has been proposed, maybe it would be an issue.
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 22
Maybe I would be looking at it a little different. In this case, I see this as an extenuating
circumstance. I think the T AT AC Committee when they met, and I was Chairman of the
Commission when that occurred, and I was very proud of the work that they did, I think
they did just a fantastic job in trying to really look at holistic plan for the Transition Area.
You look at this as open space. I think that people who are sitting on that front porch that
Dot just described, they are going to be looking at some very incredible nice open space.
That is what that is. The size of the lots -- there are many lots in Ashville Park that are
similar in size. There are some larger lots. There are some lots that range up to 15,000 to
20,000 square feet but there are a whole bunch ofthem 7,500, 12,000 square feet. So the
lots, I am not that hung up on the lot size. What I am really more concerned about is do
you connect the water to the land or the land to the water. I asked the question this
morning in the informal session. Is this plan being proffered as a plan so that the lakes
are part or the plan? And the answer is yes. I just have a hard time seeing it differently.
So, I wrestle with the thought of this. I am going to support this also.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree.
Eugene Crabtree: I agree with Mr. Ripley. I think it is a question of whether or not the
lakes are developable or not. They really are developable land if chose to be, and as it is,
it has been_chosen to be left as open space, which is to the benefit ofthe entire city and
the citizens of Virginia Beach for recreational purposes. And, therefore, as far as this
being a precedent that is going to be set for future commissions, we take each application
individually as it is anyway, and we evaluate it individually. By doing it, and making an
exception to this one time, we are not setting into law something that in the future we
would have to do that if we change the zoning ordinance and go that route in the future.
We will have no choice. We would have to do everyone of them. If we do it the way that
it has been suggested today, and we look at this as open space, and the fact that it would
be developable land if they chose to do it, this is a one-time situation. We can make
allowances for this, and in the future we can take up each application in their own merit
and judge it for that. Therefore, I am also going to support this application. I think this is
a terrific thing, and the open space, and the amenities that it has with it. I think there is
nothing in the city that is going to compare to it.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Mr. Bernas.
Jay Bernas: First, I like to say that I think the development is a great development. I
really don't have an issue with the development as a whole as much I do with the
calculation of the density. Before I go into my position, I first like to bring up a red flag
that kind of came up to me was that if this is such a great amenity when the developer
offered it to the city to Parks and Recreation, to operate and maintain, why didn't they
jump at it? They declined because of the liability. So to me, it kind of diminishes the
value of the amenity. But regardless of that, I think it is a great development, but my
position though is that I agree with our attorney's interpretation that if we were to move
forward with this development, we would have to amend the City Code. It is clear. It
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 23
says borrow pits. It is in black and white. I am not an attorney, but to me it is very clear.
I understand Mr. Hansen's said that Section 200 was never brought up, but we got it in
our report. Mr. Scott, Mr. White mentioned to us that was the basis for calculating
density within the Transition Area. I think given the public's input on the Transition
Area Guidelines, I think if we deviate from that and we tell them that we are going to use
Section 200 as our requirements to calculate density, but we are going to change our
minds now and throwaway the whole public process, and the perception that we are
going to modify it. It is very clear in the code. I just think that if I was in the public, I
would be really concerned about this City and how they are handling the public process,
and discounting what the public has worked so hard to come up within these Transition
Area Guidelines. So, if the time comes, I am not supporting the application. I would be
more supportive of deferring the application in light of amending the City Code, and
allowing' the public process of amending the City Code and bringing that to City Council.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Bernas. Ms. Anderson.
Janice Anderson: When you review the staff's recommendation, the staff
recommendation looks at lots of different things and not just density. Density is just one.
At least in my opinion it is very clear that Mr. Arnhold has met or even exceeded their
expectatiops on what else they were looking for in a development: connectivity,
amenities, and everything else. What we get down to is the density issue. And that is
because there has become a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan, the TAT AC
recommendation, and this Code section under zoning. The guidelines refer to a
developable acre. There is not a definition in the guidelines. They don't come up with
any kind of definition, but what the staff has used is the zoning definition. That is what
they have been using. So, it is not really one in the same, but that is where they have been
drawn from. In this situation, the borrow pit could be filled and be developable; so, you
can come up with the same number of houses that you could. Now, if this was
undevelopable land like a wetlands that could not be filled and developed, even though a
lot of developers would like to fill, a development like that just wouldn't happen. But a
borrow pit can be fIlled and developed without a question. I am very concerned with
. -
deviation from guidelines also, but to stick with them because of a technicality, I am not
in agreement with this. I think this is unique. It is a borrow pit that can be filled and have
development acres. If we reduce it, and I would be in support of reducing the 256 down
to 240 to match the next door neighbor's zoning so it is not higher or the nearest density.
But what do you get from that? I think that is what Ms. Wood has talked about, and Ron,
that the TAT AC said that this should be lakes, and it should be used for the public, and
the public should buy it. You are getting this from the developer. Like the applicant said,
Mr. Bourdon, said they are paying the cost of this development for the lakes. So, the City
is getting what they wanted in this area. The density, I don't think it is out of line at all
with the neighborhoods that have been there. Even with the numbers for the density, just
because there are holes in the ground, it is not a developable acre if they filled it and you
would have the same density. I think the benefits for the public outweigh, and I would be
willing to deviate from the guidelines in this situation.
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 24
Barry Knight: Mr. Livas.
Henry Livas: I would agree with that, and the analogy of the fact that the borrow pits
could be filled and utilized developable area. I don't think we should penalize the
developer now -- not after the great recreational benefits that are being presented. So for
that reason, I would support the project also.
Barry Knight: Mr. Strange.
Joseph Strange: I think the public expects us to look at all aspects of each one of these
items that come before us. Even though, I think all of us, when we first look at this, and
we see the size of this development, we might have questions in our own mind as to the
density. Once you start really diving into this and looking at all the amenities that the city
is getting, I see it a little bit differently than Jay does when he says that Parks and
Recreation may have not wanted to take this over. Maybe they didn't want to pay for the
upkeep. Maybe they didn't want to assume the liability. Here is a private developer that
is willing to do this, and provide these amenities to the city. I see that as a plus for the
developer and an amenity for the city. So, I will be supporting this application. I think
the public will see that we have done due diligence with this application, and really
studied it ,!ery carefully.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Strange. Is there any more discussion? I will weigh in.
This is in the Princess Anne District. I am the Princess Anne District representative.
This is a wonderfully designed, engineered, and represented piece of property. The houses
look good. And, if it is completed, I am sure that it will be a wonderful asset to the city.
The problem that I have with it, that I keep hearing, is the density issue. The density
issue, and it was addressed in the TAT AC, one house per buildable area. We have in here
a little discrepancy about what is a buildable acre. I see both sides of the story on this. I
just believe it looks like if Mr. Scott says they were discussing Section 200, and that is
what the guidelines went on, that it doesn't qualify to add the borrow pits in here. So it
looks like to me what we are trading is that we have one house per one developable acre,
and that looks like it is pretty well set in stone. We are adding density for recreational
amenities. It isn't clarified in there if you have a recreational amenity even as nice as this
one is going to be, how much credit you give to it. Do you give 20 percent? Do you give
it 100 percent? That is what I am wrestling with. I think it gives the Planning
Commission, in my mind, too much discretion. I would like to see public input to change
T AT AC Guidelines or to amend Section 200 to include borrow pits in the Transition
Area. So, with giving us too much discretion, Ijust don't feel comfortable. If we went
forward with an ordinance change or a change to TAT AC, and the public had input and
said this is what they wanted, I would absolutely be supporting this plan. But I just have
a question as to how we are calculating the density. So I won't be supporting this as it is
presented because there is a clarity issue to me. Is there any other discussion? I will
entertain a motion.
Item #12
LBH, L.L.C.
Page 25
Dorothy Wood: I would like to make a motion that we accept the project Sherwood
Lakes.
Barry Knight: You made the first. Is that as presented?
Dorothy Wood: As presented.
Barry Knight: Not revised 240 homes on property?
Dorothy Wood: As presented.
Barry Knight: As presented?
Dorothy Wood: Yes sir.
Barry Knight: Do I have a second?
Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it.
Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree is a second.
Janice Anderson: Substitute motion.
Barry Knight: A substitute motion? Okay, we have a substitute motion on the floor. Ms.
Anderson?
Janice Anderson: Approve with a reduction to 240.
Barry Knight: Okay. We have a substitute motion on Proffer #5 to be changed between
now and Council to reduce the 256 dwelling units to 240. Do I have a second?
Dorothy Wood: I'll accept that and second it.
Barry Knight: You accept that? Would withdraw your original? Okay. We will vpte on
the substitute first. We have a substitute motion on the floor by Jan Anderson and a
second by Dot Wood that between now and Council amend Proffer #5 to reflect a
maximum of 240 dwelling units. Is there any discussion? I will call for the question.
AYE 7
NAY 4
ABSO
ABSENT 0
ANDERSON
BERNAS
CRABTREE
HENLEY
AYE
NAY
AYE
NAY
Item #12
LBH, L.L.c.
Page 26
KATSIAS AYE
KNIGHT
LIV AS AYE
RIPLEY AYE
STRANGE AYE
WALLER
WOOD AYE
NAY
NAY
Ed Weeden: By a vote of 7 -4, the substitute motion has been approved.
Barry Knight: Thank you.
M Jt-Y g ,,"oo.i::.
J
TO 1'1 E /I1l!>ETJ..5 of THE fLFjAJ/J/NG CO,.,,,, ISS loAl
SuSSE'er 51+ER. w~C>J> L.".;:.r:.s REeOAJI Nt;, fROpoSPJL.
FP-o/YJ :B~flN"flD:T. BYRNE
-
:-7 a.. 8' ~..s PL't/IJ ,,"f)E C-r
V, ~($OJI't B EItCH V/t ~3 LJ S" b
Lf30- OS7)
RECEIVED
MAY 0 9 2006
PLANNINGDEPARTMENT
THE It PPLJ C~Nr IS PROPDSI AJtJr I'r c(:)/t1 B I4)ED
S VS (NESS / Res I P E IV 11191... l+eJ vS IAJ(;,. p E1/1::c..4r I'l7EA.I T ~AJ
rjf-I,S FR.t:>PER. TY, 'IT /NC,L.VPE:.S ~s-, ITtJUSI,vr:, LMJlr..s,l
M o~ 1H-ItAJ 7"W I~E THE Al&J/l1B&1'< If--tLct..Uen 8Y 7f'fIE
PR.IAJCESS 1t4JIVE / 7i<."AJSlr/uAI .IJ-/1.E'f GtJIDbL~AJE.s.
rH€ DEVE'-" pel< Is 77l 'Y 1~6. 7Z' C'~u^rr r#E
~ UR.ReJv'r B c;Il..Je 0 IN P Ir..s I Ft..JT(J~E "t..../I-/< Es~ /ts OEtlELDP/HlL.E
I'rCRE ItGE. IJs P~/A)T~ e>ur By 71tE 5rlffF '</i:P,rl1/ 71fIS
IltJre~p~IiFT/-r71tJ'" ~s /A./~"AlSIS,E"''- w/rl'/' ThE C"~,/AJ&
ORO/NI9Nc.E "'110 IS LhJ~CEP'T/rf1L€
II\)tE S l,/uvL./) IItJ SIS r fN/t'f' T1t1s n-,PL/ C,l'JAlT Ct:uJFtJ~1'1
To TH-G' (;UIDEl./A.JES :::rUST LIAE /j-u- aTlfe.tl. J>EYEZ-"peleS~ Fo~
'17t1f R €A$ON Tfils !lEco,.;nJ&, l'~() PIJS"t.. S/'/(')IJJJ) 8€ DF:AlIE.D
./
SIN c el'2 ELj,
~.l?4~d ~
v \~n . 'v ~\-_
PETITION
AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES
Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road
Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess
Anneffransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre.
Tile current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural
cmaracter.
Name
.~ nV\R L-€uJl'~
ell; Lk.. Le.;,,0 j >
Vl1A6&ic W DO
J2(tM
~L.~
5ekWl 1.a.H\t~
Address
Lf- \)6 2:&'1 S"\
~'s- ~f)". ~_, ch.fs~
ilL (OVi1..hy J4f~Wf> i)lC..iV'e.
2,. 3 'f"(".
~4'D1
2~g Crnro -P\ p~
To C>"'.....')::r.> {i....._ i" ", ''_-. -;.. i
.-,....\-' .'c.~' ___....." _ '" ,.
Co./Dept.,?,... ~ . ;
-" r::;..J ...- .......
Phone # i' ,r .r.. 0 '1 )
l' '~i
Fax # ";\"'~' ".- Fax # 1...,' / to., i ('I.f" :2.
'''''' I . ..... '-''-I -"('~'O T
'. )'~ C~~BrZ ~,~~'jD l.J....~s tQ~O:::~p'rVI~L.
ARTICLE 2. GENERAL REQUIRE..Ll'.a.c.,n u, \C)..r 100apunns sUDJect to special restrictions
AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE pursuant to section 5B.5 (c) of the Site Plan
TO ALL DISTRICTS Ordinance (Appendix C) shall not be included in
deteI?Dining minimum. lot area requirements.
A. REGULATIONS RELATING TO
LOTS, YARDS, HEIGHTS, OFF-STREET
PARKING AND OFF-STREET LOADING
Sec. 200. Lots. "
(a) Density, lot coverage, floor area ratio and
lot area. For purposes of determining allowable
dwelling unit or lodging unit density, lot coverage,
floor ar~a ratio and minimum lot area require-
ments, the following shall be included:
(1) Public and private utility easements, so
long as the total width of the easement is
twenty (20) feet or less;
(2) Easements for ingress and egress in favor
of others;
(3) Flood fringes;
(4) Manmade drainage areas and the ease-
ments over them constructed primarily
for storage and retention of stormwater
runoff on the lot and conveyance from the
lot except that only the first ten (10) feet
of such areas closest to their boundary
shall count toward minimum lot size re-
quirements;
(b) The..following shan not be included in de-
_term.iDjn~ the allowable dwelling unit or lod~g
. unit....d~!!!iitY..,J~overage. floor area ratio and
!!linimum l~~~quirement~:
(1) The floodway portion of any floodplain;
(2) Any body of water except as mentioned
above;
(3) Any manmade drainage areas such as
borrow pits and the easements over them
constructed primarily for purposes other
than storage and retention of stormwater;
(4) Wetlands;
(5) Any part of a public or private utility
easement whose total width is more than
twenty (20) feet; and
Supp. No. 76
2506.1
CO. C_ vb' ~~7'Jt.i. tti<.
Phone # '1' 7...; . Lj 75'1. ~.
200
(d) Lot width.
(1) Lots abutting rights-of-way that are
straight or where the radius of curvature
is ninety (90) feet or more shall meet the
following standards:
(i) The width of the lot shall be deter-
mined by measuring across the rear
of the required front yard.' Each lot
shall be configured so that a straight
line' drawn across the rear of the
required front yard is equal to or
greater in length than the minimum.
lot width for the district in which the
lot is located.
(ii) A straight line drawn between the
points of intersection of the side lot
lines with the right-of-way line shall
constitute the street line frontage of
the lot. Each lot shall be configured
so that the width of this frontage is
at least equal in length to eighty (80)
percent of the required minimum lot
width.
(2) Lots abutting rights-of-way when the ra-
dius of curvatUre is less than ninety (90)
feet or on the turning circle of cul-de-sacs
shall meet the following standards:
(i) The width of such a lot shall be
determined by the following method.
First, a straight line is drawn be-
tween the two (2) points where the
side lot lines intersect the right-of-
way line; second, a straight line is
drawn from the center of curvature
through the midpoint ofthe first line
into the lot; third, a straight line is
drawn perpendicular to the second
line and a distance back from the
right-of-way line equal to the re-
quired front yard in the applicable
district. The length of this third line
between the side lot lines is the
width of the lot. Each lot shall be
configured so that the width meets
co (HIGHGAtE GREENS J
p.o. BOX 6887 . VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456
Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development
Operations Building, #2
Municipal Center
2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 115
Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040
Attn: Ms. Karen Prochilo
Re: Proposed Development - Sherwood Lakes
Ms. Prochilo,
On Saturday November S, 2005, Mr. Jim Arnhold, the developer for the proposed Sherwood
Lakes residential development to be located adjacent to our neighborhood, attended our annual
homeowner's association meeting to discuss his development plan ("Plan''). The meeting was
attended by the Highgate Greens Board of Directors as well as by nearly 150 members of our
association.
On November 12, 2005, members of the Highgate Greens Board of Directors met with Mr.
Arnhold to discuss our neighborhood's concerns regarding the Plan expressed at the HOA
meeting. In response to our concerns, Mister Arnhold agreed to amend the Plan as follows:
. Elimination of the proposed vehicular connection to McNelly Lane;
. Addition ofa 10' wide meandering pedestrian connection at the end ofMcNeUy Lane
(to include extensive landscaping to conceal the pathway);
. Elimination of two of the proposed lots adjacent to Highgate Greens home sites at the
end of McNelly Lane and addition of 20' landscape buffers at the rear of the remaining
adjacent lots;
. Addition of20' wide landscape buffers between home sites at the end of Upper Greens
Place and proposed "executive" home sites at the northeast corner of Sherwood Lakes.
The proposed modifications to the Plan are described in greater detail in a letter received from
Mr. Arnhold, a copy of which is attached. The Board of Directors and the residents of High gate
Greens appreciate Mr. Arnhold's efforts and willingness to respond to our concerns to make the
Plan more acceptable to our neighborhood. In the event that the Sherwood Lakes development is
approved at this site, we request that City staff ensure that, at a minimum, these modifications are
included in the development plans. In addition, we would ask that the City investigate the
potential for emergency access to Sherwood Lakes from Seaboard Road, rather than from
McNelly Lane, as you have suggested is the City's preference.
However, we as a community oppose the Sherwood Lakes development plan in its current
configuration. We feel that the development as planned is inconsistent with the character and
quality of existing nearby neighborhoods, as wen as other developments proposed in the
transition area such as Heritage Park and Asheville Park. In addition, we oppose the current plan
www.highgategreenshoa.com
Highgate Greens
Proposed Development - Sherwood Lakes
November 22, 2005
because it appears that this development does not comply with the 2003 Comprehensive Plan
Transition Area Development Guidelines ("Guidelines").
The Guidelines recommend a maximum density of one dwelling unit per developable acre. The
site proposed for Sherwood Lakes is approximately 244 acres with approximately 122 acres of
borrow pit that would be converted to lake amenities. City of Virginia Beach ordinances provide
that borrow pit acreage cannot be considered as developable acreage for calculation of dwelling
unit density. As a result, the maximum number of dwellings that can be allowed for this site to
conform to the Guidelines would be approximately 122. The plan currently being proposed for
Sherwood Lakes includes more than twice that number, 264 dwelling tmits.
In addition to our concern over the dwelling unit density, the "zero lot line" configuration of the
development, as well as the rear loading cottage homes are aspects of the Plan that are
inconsistent with the design and quality of all the surrounding developments 'and planned
developm~ts, including Highgiite Greens, Three Oaks, Highgate Crossing, Heritage Park and
Asheville Park.
The southern section of Virginia Beach has experienced rapid growth in recent years, placing a
strain on existing infrastructure including roads, utilities, schools and other City services. The
2003 Guidelines were established in order to control growth and proposed developments and to
protect the quali1;y ofllfe that the residents of this part of the City enjoy. Approving the Sherwood
Lakes Plan as currently proposed seems to be in conflict with those goals outlined in the 2003
Guidelines. We urge the City to deny this Plan unless and ootil it is modified to comply with the
density recommendations of the Guidelines and meet our objections to the Plan.
We are available to discuss this matter with you at any time. Please contact me or either member
of our Legislative committee as listed below if you have any questions or comments.
Scott Lovell
David Hinchee
466-9608
427-0844
Thank you for your continued consideration of our position on this issue.
Sincerely,
1?.~ ~
Rich Kaiser
President, Highgate Greens Homeowners Association
Home: 430-6763, Work: 306-6090
cc:
via email & certified mail
Mr. Jim Reeve (jreeve@vbgov.com)
Mayor Meyera Obemdotf (mobemdo@Vbgov.com)
via certified mail
Janice P. Anderson
Donald H. Horsley
Robert S. Miller, m
John: S. Waller
Planning Connnission Members
Eugene F. Crabtree
Katherine K. Katsias
Ronald C. Ripley
Dorothy L. Wood
William W. Din
Barry D. Knight
Joseph E. Strange
Sherwood Lakes
11/12/05
RE: Highgate Greens subdivision concerns
1. The road connection has been eliminated. The connection to Highgate Greens will
be made by a 10' wide, :MEANDERING, multi-purpose trail. Extensively
landscaped open space will be provided on either side of the multi purpose trail.
a. The multi-purpose trail will connect to an extensive trail system
throughout Sherwood Lakes, and will provide the residents of High gate
Greens access to the following:
i. The 35-acre park currently owned by The City of Virginia Beach.
ii. The shopping centers located at the intersections of Princess Anne
and Sandbridge Roads.
111. The new elementary school.
IV. The other subdivisions within The Transition Area.
2. A 20' landscape buffer and park. will be dedicated to the City ofVrrginia Beach.
The park will be located at the north property line, adjacent to the 35 acre city
park site and the 20' landscape buffer will be located along the common property
line between Sherwood Lakes and the homes on Upper Greens Place. The buffer
will preserve the existing trees between the homes on Upper Greens Place and
Sherwood Lakes. Additional landscaping, up to Category IV, may be provided
within the 20' landscape buffer if the existing trees are not adequate. The
additional landscaping will be provided upon request by the board of the Highgate
Greens Home Owners Association.
3. Sherwood Lakes will provide a varied mix of single-family detached homes.
a. Cottage Homes- these homes will be built on minimum 6000 square foot
lots. Homes will be rear loading with parking for a minimum offour cars
in addition to a two car garage. These homes will all front open space
areas with sidewalks on all sides of the open space. Homes will average
between 2200 and 2400 square feet of living area and will have a starting
base price of approximately $430,000.00.
b. Manor Homes- these homes will be built on minimum 9000 square foot
lots. Homes will be rear loading with parking for a minimum of four cars
in addition to a two car garage. These homes will all front open space
areas, or overlook the lake amenity, with sidewalks on all sides of the
open space. Homes will average between 2600 and 2900 square feet of
living area and will have a starting base price of approximately
$575,000.00.
c. Executive Homes- these homes vvill be built on minimum 9000 square
foot lots. Homes will be front loading with parking for a minimum of four
cars in addition to a two car garage. These homes will overlook the lake
amenity, with a sidewalk and multi-purpose trail on either side of the
street. Homes will start around 3000 square feet of living area and will
have a starting base price of approximately $665,000.00.
Sherwood Lakes
11/12/05
RE: Highgate Greens subdivision concerns cont.
Sherwood Lakes has been designed using Traditional Neighborhood Design, or "TND",
similar to the successful designs found in "Celebration Station" and "Baldwin Park",
both ofwbich are located in Orlando, Florida The goal ofTND is to encourage a sense a
neighborhood. This has been accomplished by using reduced front yard set backs and
useable front porches, a combination that encourages residents to converse with each
other while they are taking a stroll or relaxing on their front porch. The reduced front
yard setbacks, in addition to the shifting of the homes through use of a zero lot line, also
enables residents to maintain a sense of privacy in their rear yards.
During preliminary reviews, Sherwood Lakes has proven to score bighly on the
Transition Area Matrix and substantially meets all of the TATAC guidelines. The
subdivision provides over 74% open space, and a lake amenity on a scale that has not
been attempted in the City ofVrrginia Beach.
Karen Prochilo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
patrick shuler [pshuler@stricklandandshuler.comj
Monday, November 21,20052:12 PM
Karen Prochilo
FW: Highgate Greens Resident Concern
-----Original Message-----
From: patrick shuler [mailto:pshuler@stricklandandshuler.comJ
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 2:09 PM
To: 'Kprocil@vbgov.com'
Subject: FW: Highgate Greens Resident Concern
Hello,
My name is Patrick Shuler and my wife and I live at 2305 McNelly-Lane, Va.
Beach, VA 23456. As a resident of virginia Beach living in the Highgate Greens
development, I have some concerns about the proposed development adjacent to our
neighborhood replacing the E.V. Williams property.
I am in favor of a development replacing the exhausted pit, but am concerned about the
connectivity that is proposed to our neighborhood, specifically to our street. I would
like the following changes considered to the plan:
1) The connection to Highgate Greens at McNelly be a narrow meandering bike
~ath rather then a road, emergency access, or a wide straight bike path.
2) The buffer between the two neighborhoods at McNelly be SO feet of wooded
area as to deny visibility between the two neighborhoods.
3) Possibly place the emergency access onto Seaboard Road.
I respectfully request that this correspondence be shared with the Planning Committee and
City Council in making their decisions.
Very truly yours,
Patrick L. Shuler
Patrick L. Shuler
Strickland & Shuler, P.C.
One Columbus Center
Suite 520
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
(757)' 466-3072 voice
(757) 466-2854 fax
The information contained in this electronic message is legally privileged and
confidential under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby
notified that any use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
Datrick L. Shuler, Strickland & Shuler, P.C. at (757) 466-3072 or by return e-mail to
~shuler@stricklandandshuler.com and purge the communication immediately without making any
copy or distribution.
1
Karen Prochilo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Amy Hougasian [amyhougasian@yahoo.comJ
Monday, November 21,2005 1 :11 PM
Karen Prochilo
Proposed Sherwood Lakes Development
Dear Ms. Prochillo,
My husband and I, along with our 3 children (aged
3,6,9) live at the very end of McNelly Lane in the Highgate Greens subdivision. Our
property would run directly beside the proposed neighborhood.
We have several concerns about the proposal.
1. We would be greatly opposed to any cut-through at the end of our street. We could
handle a narrow bike path, but not an emergency access. We have 12 children under the age
of 16 living on our street. We have enjoyed very little traffic and little concern for
our children's safety as they run, play ball and learn to ride their bikes on McNelly.
Plus, children from other streets corne and play on McNelly because of the safety. With a
20 foot wide cut~through, that would all change. We are not only concerned with traffic
in our own neighborhood, but also with traffic from the proposed Sherwood Lakes,
neighboring communities and any other traffic who desires to cut through McNelly to
shorten their commute. Speeding is a problem already in our development. I can't imagine
adding hundreds more cars as cut through traffic. .
Safety is of the utmost concern. Having looked at the proposal, I see that there is a
proposed easement for a bike path onto Seaboard Road. It would make much more sense to
have the emergency access there. The rescue teams from the courthouse area would be able
to simply turn onto Seaboard (where there is a light) and have direct access to the side
of Sherwood Lakes, close to the proposed senior living complex. This would eliminate the
Leed for emergency traffic winding through our neighborhood where children are always at
play.
2. We are also concerned about crime. Our one way in, one way out design is, in and of
itself, a major deterrent to crime. Plus, it takes a long, long time to turn out of our
neighborhood. Yet another deterrent. Again, we are concerned for our safety.
3. Another factor to consider is parking. If any type of access is allowed at the end of
our street, including a bike path, we feel that no parking signs should be erected.
Again, we have small children playing on our street, and we don't want to become a major
thoroughfare to Sherwood Lakes. We would hope that residents of our community would ride
their bikes, but those intending to picnic may decide to park on our street and walk.
Tying up our street with unnecessary vehicles would further risk our safety as emergency
vehicles may not be able to get to us!
4. On McNelly, we enjoy our privacy. The proposal only allows a 20 foot buffer of woods
between the neighborhoods. We would request that the buffer be extended to 40 or 50 feet.
A big reason we bought this house 4 years ago was because of the relative privacy and that
our children could play back here.
5. We understand that there are certain city restrictions concerning the total number of
hOuses allowed on this property. Given the fact that our roadways can't bear the current
load, we would ask that the developer reconsider the density of homes.
Keep in mind that we are pretty pleased with the concessions the developer has already
made. We are just asking for a few more, some of which he has no control over.
We could accept the proposal with the following conditions. 1) no emergency access on our
street (Seaboard would be better anyway) 2) Narrow the bike path and make it meandering
lith heavy landscaping 3) erect no parking signs on our street 4) extend the buffer zone
~o 40 or 50 feet 5) further address the density issue.
I thank you for your time and efforts. Should you have any questions, please feel free to
call me at 757 430-2020, or respond by email toamyhougasian@yahoo.com.
1
Best regards,
Amy, Steve, Katie, Keith and Claudia Hougasian 2300 McNelly Lane Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Highgate Greens
Amy Hougasian
2
Karen Prochilo
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Chantal Sexton [csexton@hpmlaw,com]
Monday, November 21 , 2005 12:20 PM
Karen Prochilo
william.m.sexton@navy.mil; pshuler@stricklandandshuler.com;
amyhougasian@yahoo.com
SHERWOOD FOREST OPPOSITION EMAIL
Subject:
Good Morning Ms. Prochillo:
My husband, my 7 year old son, and I live at 2304 McNelly lane in Highgate
Greens. We oppose the development going in right next door to us in what is currently a
Pit. The Plan as currently proposed is inconsistent with the design and quality of
existing nearby neighborhoods as well as other developments proposed in the transition
area. In addition, we oppose the Plan because it does not comply with the 2003
Comprehensive Plan Transition Area Development Guidelines.
We are only 2 lots away from the dead end where Mr. Reeves is adamant about putting a
road through. We vehemently oppose this.
1. Notwithstanding the fact that the traffic is horrendous on the roads around our
neighborhood, if a road were put through on our dead end street, we have 12 kids on
McNelly Lane alone (not a long street), and we foresee this as a means for everyone from
the other side (Sherwood lakes, Sandbridge, Pungo, Lago Mar, " . you name it) to cut
through our neighborhood to try and get a jump on traffic that is already crazy on
Princess Anne to and from the court house (it take 10 minutes to make a left turn onto
Princess Anne, and the right turn is rapidly getting
worse) Nimmo parkway's incomplete status does not help with traffic at all. (I hear it
won't be complete until 2012 now.) We also fear people in the other direction (from the
~ourt house or down General Boothe) would also use our neighborhood as a cut through to
get to the Food Lion, Pungo, the schools, Catholic Church, etc....
2. We would also have a new worry, that of crime, We were told when we built the house
that this neighborhood would be a one way in and one way out neighborhood to deter crime.
This was a feature we really favored.
What happened??
3. Parking on our street in front of our houses to get to the park in Sherwood for those
who are too lazy to walk or ride their bike is another potential problem. With our kids
out playing, we worry about any unfortunate events that might Occur as a result of this.
4. We have a problem with cars going faster than the speed limit anyway in our
neighborhood and finally we are educating people through our HOA that it is just not worth
it to speed. If a cut through were to become approved, the speeding would be even worse.
Again, we are concerned about our children outside playing, while someone in a hurry to
get to work cuts through and hits a child. Can Mr. Reeve live with that, if that were to
Occur?
However, having said all of this, if there was some sort of compromise on the part of the
devel~per complying with the guidelines, and certain changes were made to allow a
subdivision over there, we would respectfully not agree to it unless the following were
met to our
satis faction:
1. NO vehicular cut through on McNelly lane, period.
2. Construct a meandering bike (4 foot wide not a 20 foot wide bike
path) path at the end of our street so that there is no grand entrance to the other side
and vice versa.
~. Instead of the proposed 20 foot buffer, make at least a 50 foot buffer between the 2
neighborhoods with thick dense vegetation.
4. Put no parking signs up on the end of our street and impose a 50 dollar fine for those
who violate the restriction, except for McNelly Lane residents and guests of those McNelly
lane residents.
1
Page I of 1
Karen Prochilo
From: Chris Keylor [chriskeylor@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:21 PM
To: Karen Prochilo
Subject: Sherwood Lakes Proposed development
Ms. Prochilo,
Thank you for taking time to meet with me yesterday and for answering the questions I had on the draft plan, as
of 9 November, for the proposed "Sherwood Lakes" development.
I would like to share some of my thoughts on this current draft:
1. I think the preserVation of the stand of trees along all of the property adjacent to Seaboard Road is important
and should be included in any final plan.
2. I think the incorporation of a walking trail, with a connection out to Seaboard Road, is smart planning and
beneficial to the adjacent community and should be included in any final plan.
3. I think the current plan which does not create a cut through to Seaboard Road from the back of the
development is something that should be preserved in the final plan for several reasons:
A. Creating an additional road would require removal of some of the tree stand which is such a nice
feature of the current plan.
B. That section of Seaboard Road has limited visibility because of the numerous curves.
C. Additional traffic past the elementary and middle schools on Seaboard Road would increase safety
concerns.
D. Seaboard Road and its connection to Princess Anne Road which leads to the Municipal Center area is
already massively congested during school and commute hours.
Again, thank you for your time and for considering my comments as this project moves forward.
vIr,
Chris Keylor
2565 Seaboard Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23456-3501
430-7770 home
314-2906 work
Yahoo! FareCllase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
11/2912005
17 Winslow Court
Annapolis, MD 21403
February 6, 2006
Mrs. Dorothy L. Wood
3809 Thaila Drive
Virginia Beach, V A 23452
(sent via email todotw@cox.net)
Dear Planning Commission Chair:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2006, the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold
a public hearing on the application for zoning reclassification submitted by LBH, LLC.
The application includes the development of approximately 200 singl~-family homes and
50 age-restricted units. The application also includes conversion of the two borrow pits
to lakes for recreational purposes, including rental of boating equipment. I am a property
owner on Princess Anne Road and I need to share with you my strong opposition to this
application.
The development of this quantity of homes along this stretch of Princess Anne
Road will inundate the area with traffic volume the roads are not equipped to handle.
Additionally, the increase in school-aged population will have a negative impact on the
crowding of schools in that area of Virginia Beach.
I am also opposed to the recreational use of the lakes that will be created from the
borrow pits. The borrow pits are dangerously deep and their use as a boating facility will
introduce a liability that I believe the city should avoid.
The application for zoning change may have met all the requirements of a
development in the transition area according to the Planning Commission. But, I implore
you to consider the reasonableness of the request to develop this many more homes in the
transition area. The Heritage Park and Ashville Park developments are already creating
an overdeveloped situation. Please do not exacerbate the situation by adding another 250
homes. -
Thank you for your kind attention and consideration of my views.
Sincerely,
Nancy E. Williamson
cc: Karen Prochilo, Staff Planner
M/tY 8' ;'0 oI::-
I
10 1'112I'1t!>et<5 of tHE- (L1)IJ/JINC, Co,.,,,, ISS loAl
$u15Sftr 5J+~R. W~C>P L.'t~'E.s R~~o,.;/ AJt:, rROpoSPil..
- .
fp-o/ll) 13 ~fl N ItRD :r. BYRNE
~
"... 7 ~ 8 f:.s p L't N ". () IE: C--r
V,Il..(;OJ/" BE"..cH V It ~ 3 '-J S" b
J.f 30 - 0 S- 7 /
RECEIVED
MAY 09 2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
'rriE ItPPL..JC"Nr IS PROPDSINf:r A coIl1B/4JED
B vS IN E$S / RES J P E IV /'1 A L fTt:J vS I A) Go- P E1I 1=7...4,. ~EA.J"" IAJ
rJtls p,,()pel2.r'Y~ Zr IWC-L.VPE:..I ~S-, tr"us/#tS uNlr..s.,l
M ()~ "Tfr~1V 7'W/~E -rHE ,vVM8ER, "'ueHAJI?D BY 71f/E
PR.I AJ CESs 1t4),JE I /;J.".AJ$ J T}/,)A) ,lJ-RGJIT G tJ I Di#L.JAJE-S ~
IH€ DCVEL" pt:r< IS 77l Y I~(;, TZJ C-t:JUNr r/fE
/ ,., ~
c... UR.(l.eJV'r B t>1l~ ~ w P I"-..s F~TtJ~E '-/1-1< E.S /ts OEvELDP/HlL.€,
~c.R.E ".GE. Ifs Pt:>/AJT~ e>UP- BY 71/'E 5r~F /(EP.I2V; 7HIS
IN rell PR ~//orYIII,J 1$ /AlCt>AJ$IS IE~'- vtJ IFI-I rilE z:!:" ~JAJ &
OR.OI"',*/'JC,E "AlO 1.$ VN~cEP""/reL~
W/E 5Itul/L.D I JJ S/$ r rl1/t'l' r1f1s n-,PLI CJlJAlT ct:)AJF(J~~
TO 71ft:' G.UI DE"l./AJES ::rVST '-lAc /fu- t::> 71fel2. 1>EVI::~t> PEltS, FOR
rH'15 R€It5()AI/ THIs /lEe"N/AJ6 ,,eOPtJS'Jt- Sr/t:11/.1,J) 8€ DENIEJ:>
SIN c eI2EL'>',;
$~~d fr-
.$ourd 54 &smo
2821 Sea6oart{ lJl.patf
'VirlJinitL <Beacli, 'V.ft. 23456
a>IUme 757-689-2600 p~ 757-689-2901
May 8, 2006
MAY 0 8 2006
Planning Commission and City Council,
The Sherwood Lakes proposed plan is opposed to for it does not fit in the Princess Anne
Guidelines for the density is much higher than what has been determined would be a
good balance in keeping the area~s rural charachterwithout overburdening our school
systems or roads.
One of the most frequently asked questions was how density would be calculated, and the
consistent answer was that Section 200 of the City Zoning Ordinance would govern.
Under Section 200 (b)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance states that any tnanmade drainage
areas such as borrow pits and the easements over them constructed primarily for pwpose
other than storage and retention of storm water shall not be included in determining
allowable dwelling unit density. The guidelines state that it shall be one unit per
developable acre maximwn. Sherwood Lakes is proposing 2.1 units per acre, which is
double the maximum density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition
area!!!
Let's work together as a community so we may continue to shape this area and provide a
clear vision that will respect its past while we plan for its future in providing and
preserving the quality this wonderful area deserves. The highly successful collaborative
public process that helped create the Princess AnnelTransition Guidelines should not be
forgotten.
Laura Sisino
PETITION
AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES
Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road
Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes for it does NOT meet the Princess
AnoelTransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre.
The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural
character.
Name
Address
-:r L. 6,,'{!{:+h
<t.M.
:J8& tA1li1s~A-J
..
~
PETITION
AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES
Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road
Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess
AnnelTransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre.
The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural
character.
Name
~vr-
At, E.11IfJtl~6C:
~H~'
~.
i
\\r ?,
~~b'7, . PETITION
AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES
Located on Princess Ann and backing-up to Seaboard Road
Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess
Anlteffransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre.
The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area'~ rural
character.
Name
Signature
/l7Ci r-v
'I "
-z..2.J,f- 'j,J .,r~ ~t. ~ ~
\I /4. If...'t Y.:J't.
Z21 2-
V ..
~ \" \
~\~'l PETITION . ~ .
AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LA~
Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road
..,
Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess
AnnelTransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per develop~ble acre.
The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin ,the area'.. rural
character.
Address
7 i S W':J ,'"vJw..,.I;" C';- V ~
1 /
',. \;~
f A^
U-
~Q '~~
/4 ~ iT:il/JA{ .. {~~ ~;~
Ulr(i1l1 fu~ ~ ~
VJj
fltJl A4h ,~.~
~@ ?ldi'~ 4/3
~ I.J? 6/IJ{)S ~
PETITION
AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES
Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road
Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess
Aonerrransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre.
Tile current plan will contin,,~ to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural
character.
De1or~ S_ ~4Ml It/\ .
~. fl ~~
I; {5SA blAt IdV/GE:r;
-rc; .. 'X. ~A... 0 O..N~'t\ h,,- I
. ,-I \
()~\iKI"i S(?.'~-\-L."
~
'<,:;:,~;.~ "..J'~tJ\j\
PETITION
AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD LAKES
Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road
Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes. It does NOT meet the Princess
AnnelTransition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre.
The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural
character.
I Name
~~ JklLr
.!/~/)~ c:.:,. /.k~-t.
Je.~t.e.' Pla.t1.~a.n
Signature Address
.# ~ · lifJ5 ~ P...J
~.~ ;)'~7/~ ~~
, ~ /8'rsO No ~ iJ.a~-I&...
PETITION
AGAINST THE PROPOSED PLAN OF SHERWOOD'LAKES
Located on Princess Ann and backing up to Seaboard Road
Against the current proposed plans for Sherwood Lakes for it does NOT meet the Princess
Anne/Transition Guidelines for it exceeds the maximum of 1 dwelling per developable acre.
The current plan will continue to overburden our roads and schools and ruin the area's rural
character.
Name
Signature
Address
...,,' <''''-f PL ^ . rAf.\<:: /YJ
"'...., .- ..) v F-j1VT'jIf) u (M\.,
.Pxt
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6313, DF-6421, DF-6422
DATE: June 2,2006
TO:
FROM:
Leslie l. Lilley ~
B. Kay WiISO~
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; L.B.H., LLC: Conditional Rezoning
L.B.H., LLC: Retail
L.B.H., LLC: Restaurant
The above-referenced conditional zoning applications are scheduled to be heard by
the City Council on June 13, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreements, dated
July 31,2005 and November 17, 2005 and have determined them to be legally sufficient
and in proper legal form. Copies of the agreements are attached.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter
further.
BKW las
Enclosure'
cc: Kathleen Hassen
PREPARED BY:
~ sms. ROURDON.
.. Am:RN & 1M. P.c.
L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
E.V. WILLIAMS, INC. f/k/a BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation
LORD DeLONG, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 31 st day of July, 2005, by and between L.B.H.,
L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the fIrst part; E.V.
WILLIAMS, INC. f/k/a BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation, Grantor,
party of the second part; LORD DeLONG, L.L.C., _a Virginia limited liability
company, Grantor, party of the third part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a
municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the
fourth part.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of two (2) parcels of
property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach,
containing approximately 136.5 acres designated as Parcels One and Two in
Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Parcels One
and Two along with the other parcels described herein and in Exhibit "A" are
hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property"; and
GPIN: 2414-01-4092
2404-80-9627 (Part of)
2403-69-8016
2403-88-6753
2403-89-0088
2403-79-8068
2403-79-3035
1
PREPARED BY:
WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of five (5) parcels of
property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach,
containing a total of approximately 102.6 acres and designated as Parcels Three,
Four, Five, Six and Seven in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference. These five (5) parcels along with the other parcels described herein
and in Exhibit "A" are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the
Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City
of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the
Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 to PDH-2 with
underlying R-1 0 District; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly
development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land
development legislation; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes
inc~mpatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the
area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the
need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of
the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to
land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's
rezoning application gives rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of
and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the PDH-
2 (R-10) Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following
rea.sonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of
the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative
and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and
the need for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal
representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest,
voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its
governing body and without any element of compulsion or Quid pro Que for zoning,
m SITts. ROUROON.
WAHrnN & 1m. P.C
2
PREPARED BY:
~ sms. ROURDON.
DI AIlERN & llVY. P.c.
depicted on the "Elevations" entitled: (a) "EXECUTIVE HOMES at Sherwood Lakes"
dated 7-31-05; (b) "MANOR HOMES at Sherwood Lakes" dated 7-31-05; (c) "CO'ITAGE
HOMES at Sherwood Lakes" dated 7-31-05; and (d) "AGE RESTRICTED HOMES at
Sherwood Lakes" dated 7-31-05, which have been exhibited to the City Council and is
on f1le in the Department of Planning.
5. The total combination of single family and age restricted multi-family
units to be developed on those portions of the Property zoned PDH-2 may not exceed a
maximum. of 240 units.
6. The party of the first part agrees that during the detailed site plan review
it shall conduct a Traffic Impact Study of the impacts of Sherwood Lakes. The Grantor
agrees to substantially complete or bond the required improvements on Princess Anne
Road at the entrance to Sherwood Lakes that are called for in the Traffic Impact Study.
Said improvements shall be substantially completed or bonded prior to the issuance of
the first permanent occupancy permit for residents within Sherwood Lakes.
7. Prior to the Grantee issuing the first building permit for any residential
unit, the party of the first part shall contribute the sum. of $400,000.00 to Grantee to
be utilized by the Grantee for right of way improvements to that section of Princess
Anne Road lying south of its intersection with Sandbridge Road and north of its
intersection with Flanagans Lane. In accordance with Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of
Virginia, if the Grantee has no projects for any right-of-way improvements to the
designated section of Princess Anne Road in Grantee's Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.) at the time the first building permit is requested, payment of the $400,000.00
contribution shall be deferred until the Grantee includes such a project in its C.I.P. If
the funds proffered and paid by the party of the first part in this paragraph are not
used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for
which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee
for any other public purpose.
8. When the Property is developed, the z4.3 acre parcel near the northeast
corner of the property designated "CITY PARK DEDICATION" on the Concept Plan shall
be given and dedicated to the Grantee.
9. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site
Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City
agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall
4
PREPARED BY:
continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of
the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue
despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent
amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially.
revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be
repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner
of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said
instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of
an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a
public-hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of
Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or
resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such
consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void.
The Grantor covenants and agrees that:
(1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be
vested With all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and
restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance
with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure
compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction,
abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause
to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be
appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant
to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof
prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and
the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the
office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee.
1)
0:
c.:
ec
: Sms. ROURDON.
AIIfRN &; liVY. P.c.
5
PREPARED BY:
III SYIa:S. ROURDON.
.. AlIfRN & lM. P.c.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
E.V. WILLIAMS, INC., a Virginia corporation
'-.~
/'.------::, -- . -.~
~"- -_.
. .X, ___~-c.-:;;----' J .~
/' Thomas L. Partridge, PEfsident
~
(SEAL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINiA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was aclmowledged before me this /1- ..fit.- day of
August, 2005, by Thomas L, Partridge, President of E.V. Williams, Inc., a Virginia
corporation.
J
9L::E~~
{
My Commission Expires: 7/:3 tj~ 7
7
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL ONE:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, together with the improvements
thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate in the Princess Anne
Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being shown and designated
as PARCEL "A" 1,481,191.00 Sq. Ft. or 34.00 AC., on that certain plat entitled
"SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DAVID B. HILL, JR. (D.B. 2522, PF.
1294) Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", dated December 18,
1990, prepared by Miller-Stephenson & Associates, P.C., which plat is duly
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, in Map Book 212, at Page 5.
GPIN: 2414-01-4092
PARCEL TWO:
ALL THAT certain tract or parcel of land, with the improvements thereon and all
sand, minerals, mining rights, licenses, permits, and all other appurtenances
thereunto belonging, situate, lying and being in Princess Anne Borough, Virginia
Beach, Virginia, known, numbered and designated as "A - 102.96 Ac." as shown
on the plat entitled "Survey of Property of Evelyn L. McKnight and Land Farm
Co., Inc., Map Book 102, Page 23 (erroneously referred to as Map Book 91 at
Page 52 in prior deed), Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made
by W.B. Gallup, Surveyors, dated April 21, 1969, revised November 23, 1973,
duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia
Beach, Virginia simultaneously with a Deed dated February 22, 1974 from Evelyn
L. McKnight and William R. McKnight to Capricorn Associates, which Deed is
recorded in Deed Book 1403, at Page 687, in the Clerk's office, said parcel being
of the dimensions as shown on said plat tow which reference is hereby made for a
more particular description of said property.
Less and Except that ten (10) foot strip which was conveyed to the City of Virginia
Beach for road widening as recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book
2028, at Page 723.
GPIN: 2404-80-9627 (Part of)
PARCEL THREE:
PREPARED BY:
ALL THAT CERTAIN parcel of land, situated on the east side of Seaboard Road,
Princess Anne Borough, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, being designated as
PARCEL C, as shown on that certain plat entitled "Plat of Property of Lee Edward
Johnson Estate, Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", made by
AID Syn:s. ROURDON.
mAIImN & UVY. P.c.
9
PREPARED BY:
mm SYKIS.1l0URDON.
DI AHrnN & llVY. P.C
Harold R. Warren, Jr., Certified Land Surveyor, Virginia Beach, Virginia, dated
April 15, 1968, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 78, at Page 49, reference to which plat is
hereby made for a more particular description of said property.
GPIN: 2403-69-8016
PARCEL FOUR:
ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land, situate in the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, containing 43.770 acres shown and designated as "PARCEL 'B-1"', on
that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY PARCEL B SURVEY OF
PROPERTY OF E.L. McKNIGHT & LAND FARM CO., INC. (M.B. 102, P. 23)", made
by -Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated 2, September 1988, which plat is
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, in Deed Book 2816, at Page 1072.
GPIN NO: 2403-88-6753
PARCEL FIVE:
ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land, situate in the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, containing 7.162 acres shown and designated as "PARCEL 'B-4"', on
that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY PARCEL B-1 AND THE
REMAINS OF PARCEL B PROPERTY OF E.L. McKNIGHT & LAND FARM CO.,
INC. (D.E. 2816, P. 1072 Plat)", made by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd.,
dated August 25, 1998, which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 272, at Pages 95-96.
GPIN: 2403-89-0088
PARCEL SIX:
ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land, situate in the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, containing 5.219 acres shown and designated as "PARCEL 'B-5"', on
that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY PARCEL B-1 AND THE
REMAINS OF PARCEL B PROPERTY OF E.L. McKNIGHT & LAND FARM CO.,
INC. (D.E. 2816, P. 1072 Plat)", made by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd.,
dated August 25, 1998, which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 272, at Pages 95-96.
GPIN: 2403-79-8068
10
PREPARED BY:
11m SYKIS. ROURDON.
mADam & u:vv. P.C
PARCEL SEVEN:
ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land, situate in the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, containing 46.625 acres shown and designated as "REMAINS OF
PARCEL B - 'NOT A BUILDING SITE"' on that certain plat entitled
"RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY PARCELS B-2, B-3 AND THE REMAINS OF
PARCEL B PROPERTY OF E.L. McKNIGHT & LAND FARM CO., INC.", made by
Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated June 10, 1999, which plat is recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in
Map Book 278, at Pages 15-17.
GPIN: 2403-79-3035
CONDITIONALREZONE/LBH/SHERWOODLAKES/PROFFER
11
PREPARED BY:
.:g sms, ROURDON,
fill AIIrnN & lM. P.c.
L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
E.V. WILLIAMS, INC. fjkja BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 17th day of November, 2005, by and between
L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the frrst part, Grantor;
E.V. WILLIAMS, INC fjkja BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation,
party of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a
murucipal corporation of the Commonwealth of VirginIa, party of the third part, .
Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of
property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach,
containing approximately 2.81 acres which is more particularly described in
Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel
is herein referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part, being the contract purchaser of the
Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the
Zoning Classification of the Property from AG-1 Agricultural District to Conditional
B-1A Limited Community Business District; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly
development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land
development legislation; and
GPIN: Part of 2404-80-9627
1
WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes
incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to
permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time
to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantor's proposed
rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the
protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned
are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives
rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of
and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following
reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of
the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative
and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning
and 1:!1e need for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives,
assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without
any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and
without any element of compulsion or Quid pro QUO for zoning, rezoning, site plan,
building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of
conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical
development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees
that ,this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which
shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming
under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, aSSIgns,
grantees, and other successors in interest or title:
1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as
shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHERWOOD
LAKES", dated 07/31/05, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the
PREPARED BY: Virginia Beach City Council and is on fIle with the Virginia Beach Department of
IISms.DOURDON. Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan").
· AHmN & UVY. P.c.
2
2. When the Property is developed, the exterior of the building depicted
on the Site Plan shall have "low country", rurally compatible architectural
features, high quality building materials and earth tone colors. Detailed building
elevations and a materials board shall be submitted to the Planning Director for
review and approval prior to the review of any site plan for this Property.
3. The only use which shall be permitted on the Property shall be Eating
and Drinking Establishments without drive-through windows.
4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused
to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property.
5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site
Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City
agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements.
All references hereinabove to B-1A District and to the requirements and
regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date
of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference
incorporated herein.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall
continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning
of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall
continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the
subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or
substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions,
however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and
executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such
instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in
writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by
PREPARED BY: the goveming body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which
IlWBSYICI;:S. ROURDON. was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of
mAllmN &lM. P.c.
Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along
3
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
By:
By:
Arnhold Marketing Services, Inc.,
a Virginia corporatiOlZ::~Member
v (SEAL)
. Arnhold, President
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
fiC
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
November, 2005, by James M. Arnhold, President of Arnhold Marketing Services,
Inc., a Virginia corporation, Managing Member of L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited
liability company, Grantor.
~1Me~
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: AllgJl~t 31,2006 _ (P-c?6 _ 6 h
PREPARED BY:
_ SYm. ROURDON.
a1Al1mN & U:VV. P.C
5
bee €v-n ber
PREPARED BY:
IISYilS. BOURDON.
AIIIRN & IIVY. P.c.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
James A. Openshaw
Vice President
~
.,
I
:c
(SEAL) tl
:
STATE OFVIRGI~
CITY OF ~;~ '. c~to-wit:
. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this OJ..O ~ day of
N~~:e:ere@.r, 2005, by TOOm6l.$ k;-p..;w.t1iag@, PFesid€Bt of E.V. Williams, Inc., a Virginia
corporation. JOf'l'e 5 A. O~sho.uJ
IJICe.- ~e$.i~"" O.91€t-
Notary PUb
My Commission Expires: 7- 3 I - 07
6
L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
E.V. WILLIAMS, INC. f/k/a BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 17th day of November, 2005, by and between
L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part, Grantor;
E.V. WILLIAMS, INC f/k/a BHC ACQUISITION CORP., a Virginia corporation,
party of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY -OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a
mumcipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the third part,
Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
- WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a certain parcel of
property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach,
containing approximately 2.354 acres which is more particularly described in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel
is herein referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part, being the contract purchaser of the
Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the
Zoning Classification of the Property from AG-l Agricultural District to Conditional
B-IA Limited Community Business District; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly
development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land
development legislation; and
PREPARED BY:
GPIN: Part of 2404-80-9627
_ SYns. ROURDON,
DOl ADrnN &: IfVY. P.c.
1
WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes
incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to
permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time
to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantor's proposed
rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the
protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned
are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives
rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of
and- prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, -as a part of the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following
reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of
the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative
and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning
and t:he need for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives,
assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without
any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and
without any element of compulsion or quid pro qUO for zoning, rezoning, site plan,
building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of
conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the. physical
development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees
that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which
shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming
under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, aSSIgns,
grantees, and other successors in interest or title:
1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as
shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHERWOOD
LAKES", dated 07/31/05, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the
PREPARED BY: Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of
IISYU:S. !JOURDaN. Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan").
. AIlrnN & lIVY. P.C
2
2. When the Property is developed, the exterior of the building depicted
on the Site Plan shall have the architectural features and colors substantially as
depicted on the exhibit entitled "RETAIL BUILDING WITH 10' WRAP AROUND
PORCH", prepared by Land Planning Solutions, which has been exhibited to the
Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of
Planning (hereinafter "Elevation").
3. The only uses which shall be permitted on the Property shall be:
a. Retail Establishments;
b. Specialty shops;
c. Personal service establishments to inClude spas;
d. Art galleries;
e. Florists, gift shops, stationary stores.
PREPARED BY:
4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused
to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property.
5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site
Plan _review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City
agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements.
All references hereinabove to B-1A District and to the requirements and
regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date
of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference
incorporated herein.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and
accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall
continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning
of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall
continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the
subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or
substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions,
however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and
executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such
instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in
_ SYIa:S. ROURDON.
.. AIlmN & lIVY, P.c.
3
writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by
the goveming body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which
was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along
with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so
recorded, said instrument shall be void.
The Grantor covenants and agrees that:
(1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall
be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the goveming body of the City
of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and
restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any
noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or
suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or
prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or
proce_eding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute
cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as
may be appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made
pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the
review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances
and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public
inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning
Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and
the Grantee.
PREPARED BY:
1mB S\'I([S. ROURDON.
.. AlImN & UVY. P.c.
4
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
By: Arnhold Marketing Services, Inc.,
a Virginia corporation, Managing Member
By: AL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
-cc:='
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
November, 2005, by James M. Arnhold, President of Arnhold Marketing Services,
Inc., a Virginia corporation, Managing Member of L.B.H., L.L.C., a Virginia limited
liability company, Grantor.
~~~~
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: -AUgllBt Jl, 2086 (:yJ6- 6 6
PREPARED BY:
mSms. ROURDON.
MAHfRN & lM. P.c.
5
~'<::8~'\ \c.yer
PREPARED BY:
!lIB sms. BOURDON.
.. AlIrnN & llVY. P.c.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
E.V. WILLIAMS, INC., a Virginia corporation
t
James A. Openshaw
Vice President
(SEAL)
~~~~~,~~~~'~4. to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged b~fore me this 2.0+4.. day of
N:'oVeuiber, 2005, by Th{)m:a~ 1., PSI. tridg:e, PF€13ideat of E.V. Williams, Inc., a Virginia
corporation. ::r~lfne.s A . q,e,,'\~~0
lhee ~<-€S ,dud ~ 0 . Q . .
Notary Public r:J
My Commission Expires: 7-3 1- 07
6
PREPARED BY:
E SYKIs. ROURDON.
m AIIrnN & LM. P.c.
EXHIBIT" A"
Commencing at a point on the western right of way line of Princess Anne Road
(variable width right of way) at the dividing line of property now or formerly Willard
A. White and Parcel B-1; thence along said right of way line in a northeasterly
direction, a distance of 3,275 feet more or less to the point of beginning; thence
leaving Princess Anne Road North 570 24' 22" West, a distance of 265.47 feet to a
point; thence North 320 33' 57" East a distance of 387.68 feet to a point; thence
South 570 12' 31" East, a distance of 264.15 feet to a point on the northwestern
line of Princess Anne Road; thence along said road South 320 22' 11" West, a
distance of 386.77 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 102,541
square feet or 2.354 acres.
GPIN: Part of 2404-80-9627
ConditionalRezone/LBH/SherwoodLakes/Proffer3.3
7
Map E-3
Moo Not to Scole
{~::~ffi
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: In the matter of closing, vacating and discontinuing that certain street
known as North Oliver Drive shown on that certain plat entitled "EXHIBIT' A'
SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF N. OLIVER DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY (MB 21, PG
5) JUNE 10, 2005 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA"
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
. Background:
An Ordinance upon Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. for the
discontinuance, closure and abandonment of North Oliver Drive, beginning on
the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford,
DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE
. Considerations:
The applicant proposes to close North Oliver Drive, rezone the adjacent existing
R-10 (SO) residential properties and the closed North Oliver Drive to Conditional
B-4 (SO) Mixed Use District and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family
dwellings at a density of 21 units per acre.
The applicant has assembled all of the properties adjoining North Oliver Drive,
north of Shore Drive, and proposes to consolidate them into one site to be
developed as a multi-family residential project.
The Viewers determined that no inconvenience to the public would result by
closing this right-of-way, subject to the closure being part of the rezoning and
conditional use permit noted above.
There was opposition to the request, as the closure is part of the rezoning and
use permit applications, and there was opposition to those requests.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-2 to approve
the request, with the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding
ownership of the underlying fee, The purchase price to be paid to the City
shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's
Ocean Properties, L.L.C. - Street Closure
Page 2 of 2
Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council.
Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department.
2. The applicant shall re-subdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to
incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be
submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval.
3. The applicant shall provide an easement to the City of Virginia Beach
Department of Public Works for the continued maintenance of Lake Bradford.
The actual size and location of the easement shall be determined by the
Department of Public Works.
4. The applicant shall verify that no public utilities exist within the right-of-way
proposed for closure. If public utilities do exist, easements or relocation of the
utility satisfactory to the City of Virginia Beach Departments of Public Works
or Public Utilities shall be provided prior to final plat approval.
5. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way
proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies
indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for
closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility
company must be provided.
6. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the
above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the
conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not
approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this
approval shall be considered null and void.
. Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Ordinance
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department
City Manager~ IL , ~bV'1.
Staff Planner: Faith Christie
OCEAN
PROPERTIES,
L.L.C.
Agenda Items
15,16, & 17
May 10, 2006 Public Hearing
REQUEST:
15) Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 (SO) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SO)
Mixed Use District.
16) Conditional Use Permit for Multi-family dwellings
17) Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north
side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford.
ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 4856, 4840, 4848, and 4832 Shore Drive, and 2209, 2213,
2217,2216, and 2208 North Oliver Drive
GPIN:
14793746930000;
14793776110000;
14793756800000;
14793775880000;
14793757530000;
14793758630000;
14793769120000;
14793778500000;
14793777500000.
COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT:
4 - BA YSIDE
SITE SIZE:
3.58 acres
APPLICATION HISTORY:
On January 11, 2006, the Planning Commission deferred these requests so the applicant could meet
with the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and to allow residents of the area adequate time to consider
the proposal. Concerns regarding the proposed density, school population, traffic and pedestrian
safety were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.
."
OCEAN PR!>P~RTIES!~LC
Agenda Itetris15,t6,:~;t7
'g~g....eJ
,.,.'. ,"H'W'.
On January 19, 2006, the applicant appeared before the Shore Drive Advisory Committee (SDAC). The
applicant presented plans with a reduced density of 80 units and a reduced height. The SDAC was
pleased with the changes, but offered the following suggestion for additional modifications:
1. The applicant should consider further reducing the density.
2. The applicant should evaluate the left turning traffic from the site for safety issues.
On February 8, 2006, the Planning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation for deferral of
these requests until such time that the Shore Drive Safety Task Force completed its work and provided
its recommendations regarding safety-oriented pedestrian and vehicular improvements to the corridor.
On April 20, 2006, the Shore Drive Safety Task Force presented its findings to the Shore Drive
Advisory Committee. The Task Force divided the recommendations into "regulatory"
recommendations and "infrastructure" recommendations. A further break down of those
recommendations included "short term", "mid term", and "long term" goals. The Task Force
presented 31 recommendations to the SDAC. Some of the recommendations include installation of
"yield to pedestrian" signs, repairing damaged sidewalks, installation- of sidewalks where none exist,
evaluation of crosswalks at intersections, evaluation of lower speed limits along Shore Drive, and
shoulder improvements. The applicant's plan is unaffected by the recommendations, as the primary
recommendation of the Task Force applicable to the site is that a sidewalk be installed. The applicant's
plan depicts the installation of a sidewalk along the frontage of the site. Installation of a crosswalk in
front of this site was discussed at the January 11 hearing; however, the recommendations of the Task
Force support improvement of the intersection at Pleasure House Road in order to provide a more safe
and controlled location for crossing as opposed to a mid-block location.
In response to the issues raised at the January 11 public hearing and to the recommendations of the
Task Force,
CJ The applicant has further reduced the proposed number of units from the 80 presented to the
SDAC on January 19 to 77 units (86 units were originally requested). The proposed 77 units
equate to 21 units to the acre, three below the permitted 24 units to the acre;
CJ As noted above in the discussion of the January 19 SDAC meeting, the height of the building
has been reduced;
CJ Staff recommends a condition be added to the use permit requiring the closure of the median
break that exists for N. Oliver Drive. Vehicles desiring to head eastbound on Shore Drive can
turn right from the subject site on to Shore Drive and make a U-turn at the median break for S.
Oliver Drive.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant proposes to close North Oliver Drive, rezone the existing R-10 (SO) residential properties
and the closed North Oliver Drive to Conditional 8-4 (SO) Mixed Use District and obtain a Conditional Use
Permit for multi-family dwellings at a density of 21 units per acre.
,.'-,-,""-'--
.:>"~-",..:.:, .'
'-"~:-. '
'. .,', ," -....,. .. "".':"
OCEAN PRelPERTIESiLC'
Agenda 'teiri~t5,t6,i~;.17
. >p~ne2
.,,_.:.... "-':":"-"":-";':~-':'-{';'~:'
',.- ....',.. .' .....-..
The applicant assembled all of the properties fronting North Oliver Drive, north of Shore Drive, and
proposes to consolidate them into one site to be developed as a multi-family project. The submitted
conceptual site and landscape plan depicts a 3 to 4 story building with 77 multi-family units centered on
the site. Parking is located on the sides of the structure. The proposed building is three stories in height
along Shore Drive and on the westem side of the site. The building graduates to four-stories in height
along the eastern and northern portions of the site. Parking is also located under the four-story sections of
the building. Open space varying in width from 55-feet to 115-feet is provided in the rear of the site
adjacent to Lake Bradford. The proposed storm water management facility is also located in this area.
Fifteen-foot landscape buffers are shown along the site frontage and along the western property line.
The submitted elevations depict a modified cottage style of building. Varying rooflines, porches and faux
gazebos provide architectural relief to the building. Upon entrance to the site from Shore Drive the
proposed building features an open area with covered colonnades above. The interior courtyard features
recreational amenities such as a pool and landscaped areas for the residents. The applicant indicates the
square footage of the units will range from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: Nine single-family dwellings and North Oliver Drive currently occupy the proposed site.
The current R-10 Residential zoning allows for nine single-family dwellings.
East:
West:
. Lake Bradford
. Shore Drive
. Across Shore Drive is a shopping center / B-2 (SO) Community
Business
. WaWa / B-2 (SO) Community Business
. Waters Point Townhomes / A-12 (SO) Apartment
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND "ZONING:
North:
South:
NATURAL RESOURCE AND
CULTURAL FEATURES:
To the rear of the site exists Lake Bradford. The site is located within the
Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Ordinance area.
There are no cultural.features associated with the site.
AICUZ:
The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS
Oceana.
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Shore
Drive is a four lane divided minor suburban arterial in front of this site. The site is within the project limits
"../
,:,"-~'><:
"."""', .> ,'-' "'-'.,' "-d-',";"""'"
OCEAN PR~~F1RTIES)~LC/.
Agenda IteOls15,16,?~<17
'~~g~:4
.-, ..'-~v.:
of the Shore Drive Phase II demonstration project. This project, which is currently in the scope definition
phase, will include intersection, pedestrian, and aesthetic improvements. A right-of-way reservation
along the frontage of Shore Drive may be required during detailed site plan review.
TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic
Volume
Shore Drive 22,516 ADT 1 28,200 ADT 1 Existing Land Use Z - 90
ADT
Proposed Land Use 3 _
505 ADT
Average Dally Tnps
2 as defined by 9 single-family homes
3 as defined by 77 multi-family homes
WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is an existing eight-inch water main and a 16-inch
transmission water main in Shore Drive, and a six-inch water main in North Oliver Drive. The existing sites will
have several existing 5/8-inch water meters, one of which may be used or Ilpgraded for the project.
SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer gravity
main and a 24-inch HRSD force main existing in Shore Drive. Analysis of Pump Station #307 and the sanitary
sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated.
SCHOOLS:
Schoo~ Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2
Enrollment
Hermitage 552 672 6.2 4
Elementary
Great Neck Middle 1124 1032 2.7 1
Cox High 2116 1854 3.9 2
T" ' "
generation represents the number of students that the development WIll add to the school
2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The
number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students).
Seven portable classrooms currently exist on both Great Neck Middle and Cox High sites.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being within the Primary Residential Area (Shore Drive
Corridor, Site 1). Land use plan policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on
preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value, and aesthetic quality of the surrounding
stable neighborhoods. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-
residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future
development.
-, -'
;,,,-,-
. .,: .(.<
." '<""~' .' , .'.
.~~ ;;
OCEAN PR~~ERTIE~';~LC
Agenda IteIpS15,16,;~{17
).......fl~~~...f!
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requests for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 (SD)
Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District, Conditional Use Permit for Multi-family
dwellings, and Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on
the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford. The proffers and conditions
are listed below.
In response to the issues raised at the January 11 public hearing and to the recommendations of the
Task Force,
[J The applicant has further reduced the proposed number of units from the 80 presented to the
SDAC on January 19 to 77 units (86 units were originally requested). The proposed 77 units
equate to 21 units to the acre, three below the permitted 24 units to the acre;
[J As noted above in the discussion of the January 19 SDAC meeting, the height of the building has
been reduced;
[J Staff recommends a condition be added to the use permit requiring the closure of the median
break that exists for N. Oliver Drive. Vehicles desiring to head eastbound on Shore Drive can turn
right from the subject site on to Shore Drive and make a U-turn at the median break for S. Oliver
Drive.
The proposed density is within the guidelines for this size parcel in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay
District. Additionally, based on the reduction of units, the School Board now calculates that the school
population will be increased by only 4 elementary students, 1 middle school student, and 2 high school
students. Based on the type of units proposed for this development, those numbers could be less, as
these units-are more commonly purchased by young, single professionals and empty-nesters. In regard
to traffic volume, the new figure for daily trips corresponding to the reduction in units is 505. According to
the City's Traffic Engineering office, this portion of Shore Drive has a capacity for 28,200 vehicle trips per
day. Presently the volume is 22,516 trips per day. Thus, the addition of 505 trips is still well below the
current capacity of the roadway.
The character of the Shore Drive corridor is defined by the unique positive relationship between its
residential and commercial components. This delicate balance is assisted by a set of design criteria, the
Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines, intended to make all these diverse structures physically
compatible with one another and with their setting The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is intended to
encourage sensitive and responsible development, balancing that need with respect for property rights of
owners of undeveloped and underdeveloped land. Before the adoption of the Shore Drive Corridor ,
Overlay District the history of development in the corridor had been characterized by too high density on
too small parcels of land. The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is intended, in part, to restore the
proper balance. The requirement for a conditional use permit for multi-family dwellings within the Shore
Drive Corridor recognizes that certain uses which, by their nature, can have an undue impact upon or be
incompatible with other uses of land within the immediate area. However, the proposed use may be
allowed under the controls, limitations and regulations of a conditional use permit, as long as the
proposed use is fundamentally compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff is charged with
evaluating the impact and compatibility of the proposed use, and recommending conditions and
restrictions that will assure the use as being compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located, both
in terms of existing land uses and conditions, and in terms of development proposed or permitted by right
in the area.
.<" .. ,',' '.-.: ,'.. -,.:.."",., ~
.", ,:,-:--,::::."
OCEAN PR~fERTIESlL.C
Agenda Itemst5,t6,;~:17
. 'e~ge.5
The Shore Drive Corridor is a unique resort residential community, which provides a wide mix of housing
styles and types. This particular request is rare in the Corridor in that the applicant has been able to
accumulate nine parcels of land for consolidation and development in accordance with the Shore Drive
Corridor Overlay District and Design Guidelines. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposed residential use and density are compatible with the
surrounding land use pattern, and is less than the permitted density for a parcel of this size within the
Shore Drive Corridor district. The submitted conceptual site layout and landscape plan depicts a
coordinated development of the site in terms of design, parking layout, landscaping, and traffic control
and circulation within the site. The submitted building elevations depict proposed buildings of three and
four stories in height to be constructed of high quality building materials in a design complementary to the
Shore Drive Corridor. Staff believes the submitted proffer agreement and conditions listed below will
produce a quality project that is both compatible with the area and consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan recommendations for the Shore Drive Corridor.
Thus, Staff recommends approval of the requests as proffered and conditioned below.
PROFFERS
The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The
applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these
proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"
(~107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve
as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning.
PROFFER 1:
When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development of this mixed
use site in terms of limited vehicular access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the
"CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIMUS
SHORE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA." Dated 8/31/05, prepared by MSA, PC. which has been exhibited to
the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept
Plan") shall be substantially adhered to.
PROFFER 2:
When the property is redeveloped, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via one (1) entrance from Shore
Drive. .
PROFF.ER 3:
The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the
exhibit entitled "PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIUMS", which has been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials shall be synthetic cedar shake siding, beaded vinyl
and brick.
PROFFER 4:
> '~"'.:~~;".,,~~
<>
";' '-w>' '_....,._ .
OCEAN PRE)PERTIES<
Agenda It~$t5,l6,
:::>,'
There will be no more than seventy-seven (77) residential units within the building depicted on the Concept
Plan,
PROFFER 5:
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of
applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code
requirements.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers are acceptable. The proffer agreement insures the site is limited to 86-
77 units and developed in accordance with the submitted site layout and landscape plan, and the submitted
building elevations.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated 9/14/05, and found it to be legally
sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
CONDITIONS for the STREET CLOSURE
1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee.
The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding
Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies
of the policy are available in the Planning Department.
2, The applicant shall re-subdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed
area into the adjoining parcels, The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final
street closure approval.
3. The applicant shall provide an easement to the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works for
the continued maintenance of Lake Bradford. The actual size and location of the easement shall be
determined by the Department of Public Works.
4. The applicant shall verify that no public utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If
public utilities do exist, easements or relocation of the utility satisfactory to the City of Virginia Beach
Departments of Public Works or Public Utilities shall be provided prior to final plat approval.
5. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure.
Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the
right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility
company must be provided.
6. .Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions
. within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and
the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this
approval shall be considered null and void.
.' - . ,","" .-".':'"
OCEAN PRE>PERTIES;~l.c5
Agenda Iteail'S.15,t6'~~it7
......./e~ge 7
": '. ,.,. ;:"-,;' . .'"'>'-:,:" """~:'-:"':':,:::- ....:.,
CONDITIONS for the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. The applicant shall install a five-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of Shore Drive and tie it into the
existing sidewalk located to the east of the site. The applicant shall also provide landscaping in
accordance with the Shore Drive Phase /I Demonstration project within the right-of-way along the
entire frontage of Shore Drive.
2. The applicant shall provide a sidewalk from the building to the required five-foot sidewalk at Shore
Drive. The proposed sidewalk shall be constructed of either pavers or stamped concrete.
3. Fifty percent (50%) of the building exterior shall be constructed with hardi-plank siding. Synthetic cedar
shake siding, beaded vinyl and brick shall be used as accents and for architectural relief. All decks,
handrails and columns shall be wrapped with vinyl. Doors and windows shall be vinyl clad wood, vinyl
or aluminum. Roofing materials shall be standing seam metal, shake shingles, or architectural grade
shingles. Bui/ding and roof colors shall be neutral or earth tones.
4. The proposed berm along Shore Drive shall be 3 to 4 feet in height and shall meander and undulate
along the frontage. Plants listed in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan Appendices, Landscaping
Guidelines, shall be used on the site.
5. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan for review and approval by City staff. All lighting on the
site should be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society.
6. The applicant shall maintain a 30-foot buffer adjacent to Lake Bradford. The buffer area shall be left in
its' natural state and shall not be disturbed.
7. The applicant shall eliminate the straight / left turn lane from the plans and shall close the median
break on Shore Drive opposite the existing location of N. Oliver Drive. The applicant shall consult with
Public Works Capita/Improvement Program division and Traffic Engineering division regarding the
method and materials to be used in closing the median.
NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to
meet aI/applicable City Codes. .
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police
Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site.
. .
,.;;;"";-,-
;,~,
OCEAN PRE)PERTIES
Agenda Ite.....~lS,16,..
. e""
R~E~E~~LC
OCEAN P(S15,16';~i11
Agenda 'teT,< .~~~~.~
f;/)
E
:J
-
C
-
E
o
0"0
c: C
l 0
KU
.~. -
"g -e,'
~ "0
lIJ-
~. ~
0."0
:>. as.
~ L. ~
! CO' if
ii jIJ\ ! :
= ..., ".l: III
t~ ~!
Oc:taS!l
U...J~>
"'6.....
<11I0
CO-OIl
11I10-
. ,,;," "-
~OCdl,,-
B..:B B
lllj;'U'" III
"~Ca~ ~
DO::!IIlOl co
.. ra -000110 ".
~ :5-1ttID,...
C ..
.. :J E ~o ~
I",ii:~~l~. .:Ii..i..l J
~ f= . - fli]IIl]<< '"
;s 8. . to. i!Q. :"11 ::I S '!
J~ ~!:! ,,~j:;Jo.~
II) W1 0. ll. ll. _...._... po. ...
....~
-'3.~
-~
.ri
.n ~
U .~ ~i'~
~ffi~f
<lI' ·
VJ. J~
~ll~
R..-.....I..........'..'...
=l~ ,.... '"-+~
"~"! i
. '
,~~.~ ~.
I
rln
!'jJ
J ~ J'rf
~Il Itf!1
~fi D.g
~. ~! 1 in$.. .
"<81 Jlfl'
; ..' ~~.f.~ 11,11,
,. OR-r: It ~
", . i< &.
i '.llui
,Inl
,.-
PROPOSED SIIt;:'~LAN;-:<,:
"<'.'''''~ ,",- '-, '- -.....
OCEAN PR~PERTfES._~LC-
Agenda Itel:ri$;15,16,s~,t7' .
;P 10
. . ,- ""'. .~,.
::'~ ,
.->.., ..., ,-. ".,
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV ATI'GNL.t<
'./ '
OCEAN PRE)'PERTIES,lLC
Agenda Ite~s<15,16,~1.11
P~:E!',1.1
"".;' ~r~'?~;.f:'
.....,",..-..,
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVAtION."5i::,~;.:.':.\
.,". . .-.'".,.-,..' '-.
OCEAN PR(J)PERTIES1LC
Agenda Ite~$15,16,.~,17.
,.",~?1~
Map B-3
Moo Not to Scole
CUP - Multiple-family dwellings
Approved
Conditional Use Permit (gasoline Sales in conjunction with
convenience and car -out food store
Conditional Use Permit Motor Vehicle Sales
Conditional Use Permit Motor Vehicle Sales
Rezoning (R-5R Resort Residential to Conditional A-24
A artment
1. 3/14/00
2. 2/25/03
3. 5/9/88
4. 11/9/04
.(<_:'.<::./; ,"'~",
ZONINGfHI$tQI'l:f'
NOIIV3nddV ffiIilS01313:ffiI1S
l-
:z
UJ
:E
t:::
;5
rn
UJ
.0::
:::)
m
9
o
m
a
;t';
w
~"
~;'
_<Ii
08
~ ~'iE
~~ :
'fRoa
_~ Ii.s
c:cc:
:=~
.~; co
> 11. 0.
e-- 8
~i~~
::Iac::i
9~~J
o~~,~
w_~=
6~ .~
~:_j:lJ
~i~i~ 0
~'~i.e~ Ii
c...!'l;J t \,II
<0 (1)= ~ ~
1! eo.. i <oil '8
:si!= E ::
... is! < ~ <
~:; l:l':':' < <oil
8 'i I g g
~~1!m 'E .~
c:$=>- Xuw
.:JI:. "0= cD
'iil~j' ~Cl._~
:i"~'g \........~~
.... !: = en =Vi\:C ~
I-
Z
w
:E
w
~
?-
m
w
cr
::::>
(f)
o
..J
U
co
i5
I I
f E
:: r!
-= 1:
=> E
j ~
o
(;
IE
!" ~
1! ~
~f! j
;:)0 co E
~.& '0 ~
de- t'lB go
~": ~! ~
!if i~ ~
c Ci >.. t: ~
~.eo,"'::: r:
~ ~,=i~ I!
Cl. .:~,g'S :2
<:8~.e~ i;
l!!~~::i 0
f~!] j
.. "'~l
~~~~
~.:..-
ii,g.! ~
i.!'Ji.e
lL..~
-Q
=o~
:g Ii
oo~
c-o
"'c:()
..c:B_
~:l;<::
-$l Q.~
.x:g ,E
l>>c:~
!:58
~~~
*E....l
s: "'''0
~cc:.
~.i:
cliO
~ u;
c: 4>
:!<'-l
E ..,
. &:. .
","'51
:c;;~..;
..~~o
.~ e. <?
~ti8~
l!!e.rm
~- .. lID
.!!1!!.c:8
3!-i)
.! (; ~ .
:J ~.() ~
~!~,..
~'i5t~
",r$. c: & 10
::-,geoOi
- l!!:::>!
f~~
.!=
_0
eo
;;,
...
c:
..
~
i-
~
'>.
""
C
III
'"
'"
OJ
c:
'en
'"
.0
'g
~
~~
.'"
o ...
..
-~&
~~
~~
~i
!:::
[~
411.0,..;
cC:
ii~
::&:
"'''
=.!
!.;
~~
.5: Co
~:c
...'"
c:
"i:8
-co
"'-
':-4:
....-
I
I
I
I
l
I
1
i
I
I
i
I
!
I
i
I
I
I
i
,
,
i
I
,
i
I
'"
c'~ ~~~
(\t Q) ~ t) ~ ~-
=.. ~'2.8,2 gt.. ....~~
iu:lO~~QC;!T~O:=
~~r56! e~~, ~8
:::i:~e.,!.di~o.B Ii gu
:Cec!iiis:<lll!1<;~
"'<OS,!= lS=.e'"c
j~ca-I\O:C:4Qiiic:
!i~€~~.~ ~! :f~ ~
; ~ ~C5~~ i~ ~~~
~iit;J~~~:!
i~=isi13~o!""
E~~iiii",~.a....!'g
'",0';;;=.. c: 1< 9/-::.
iiz ~!~'i'j~i
~s ~=';;; ~~'E ~'!(I)
]!'R-g~Z~~e..gm
e~~o~.!!~8C5liCl)..:
1':0.,= e .!! '" 0 ..'5'.0
=:5c:l5C:~5 l't2'......
i~i g~ c> c as l!(!~
....I:!.-l=~lo.c:<'i
il!.ee.8S'<>> ~&Orm
--,8.6c05 Q. :a;~ '"
!!l ~.'~ 8 ~ E ~. jl>~ lID ~ c: '8
"'''ii'''lSCl",''''=oIU
! '~i. jQ ~:: 1<> ii~
'''''0 ",_c:..c:_", ... _
S2 $C:-i;.;;o~~
!~lf~!;!~~~J!l
i g ~~~ 'g i !! ~ ~ f
~J<-",Suo.,..~.:;:
!~ 5 'E ~;LE!~ !!~
(;
vi
..
<>>
c:
';;;
'"
...
E
.::
0:
~
~
..
",
8
e
~
8
..
5e
:;o:~
.l!!~
1::6
~~
~j
Ole
~e.
'e ~
Ol.-
.::::C:
".'"
" -
~~
Uc
o
!!
1:
;;; .~
.t:: E
~~ .;
~~ J
w ~I ~
It: IHi'"
;:) g::> o~
S~~ ..~
d!!E-~..
I;Q .. "" CO". ..
-lEci>iC:'"
0'8"'0"'"
fr:-!Se==:e
w..c,g~..
~~.e", '=
~ ~ ll=l~
.>. .j!,2:::::
~,=g.!!o::i
It: 4> "" Q._
w~!!!E~ii
~Q.&.8fi.2
1t:~8ec1:
a.~"'~~2
~':!-E~:
~ ~ ~~;s
~oC)~.e
!i! ~J ell
~~!!!;t
'" .. ~--
.;,z: Q.o - 4t)
~Clg:SS
o,c --
o;~.,..:
Ole>
CJ::
.S 0
,,3-:: F
:i ~ -g.g .0
4>-....0. ~
2tG2!ti. ~
:=..91 co.. ::l!
'cE~~-t5 ~e
'c~ct?! ~~
~ltl~ ~~
~-;;Ei.5 o&:
~,g~ ~&
8~ g;"'u
c:....=~2
oO!:o..
::-=1:tsS
Ei~f~
2~::F=o
SCjQ.:-
~~l:S;~
i 8.1 a'E >
,.e::J::Jc;~
,i.;ij ~ co
'1:::=-6'0 go ,
8~ "~~..J .. .
-.l!li::>.!..j~
~~~!j?j ~
_~..=~1:: ~
l;(=>,c0lQ. l1'
u-: ~.5i - ~
;:;:<ll""i€-a.. ..
j:~lL>.~i ~
In 8 ~-gti lIt;.:.~
UtO~ce.Ot:Qf
~
'c
Cl
..
..
~
';;;
::>
D
i
i
5~
..~
6~
-~~
~~
.g~
!'%
c:..
<>>-
i~
as';;';
~B
.as :.=:
.r: "0.
-0.
2'"
-..
....c:
Cl-
.".r::;
O).~
C>~
~,e.
",.c:
.....
'"
'i:~
'03
.- '"
....~
I.'
I;
,,;
.!~
I e
, II>
c:
'l::
co
Q.
C
o
~
~
8
'"
...
o
I ~.~
lGj
~a
~~
1ii
g,S
IDa.
~8
-c:
!J'c
.,'"
""'.
i5.!
.!i)
uo
10
.8
E
'"
::;
l~
~fII
'z
l~
'Q.
Ii
~
I:
Ii
;
i
~:!~
~;i
!h
"'Oi.li.
.;
..
'e
~
d:~
c:,8
8~
\O~
<'i
!
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
N
B~~
~~.-
~-..
;lJ
2
H
'"
f
~
2
f
c.
!
'"
.g
05
NOIIVJnddV ffiIilS01313:ffiI1S
OCEAN PR~~ERTJE~iLC
Agenda Iteq,~15,t6,,~17'
.pgge14
':.. <;:" -::,."'~""-:-:<':.~.,
.
.
I-
Z
UJ
:E'
w
~
~
w
c::
::I.
en
9
U.
rJ)
i5
t;---e
~-8
!!lB_
.:2 ec
'j~j'
5'5'g
.~ ~ ~
!l-~
~""i
.,2 ~ 2'
w~S""
!i 'j 'i.~
~o'E~
5!~i
!!!:811
~~]~
~lij 0
a!]!~C c:
~~!li E I
i fl= E ~
~~!J! ~ <6
8'i:g g 1
e'!!ii= 't:> s:
~! e$ ~. ,
~.i..iR Qil\.'!w
- ~ 8 91 .lJ.E
~~.~~ .~"<.-g
$ 0 QI QI ., (I}..ll:
..J__ 4ft - - ~
c
~:S_
0'0 I;)
c;:~
j@s
s!~
$!O~
xlO
~ c.c
5~~
Q.ID .0
:;:00
..e-
j 2'8
co .- -'
eil}i
."1\1
. ~s
~o.ca
''''''(is
CD!e
e.! 4>
-0. va: (I)
~ .-.
I t~i~
.!!! 2:- '?
e~_~
~- BN
,mE ..:
't:>l5~8
] ....0
::O""'C
"'13 III .
,.:.!-~
i- 0
'" 't:> -
.. c I~
SL.g .
~ l!! i
8.1-
l=; o. S
~>.5
:! ~... '"
.5 .g...~.~ >
c" '<=="0'
'" o~ J! <II,~ e o.~
.J:::. _ -0 a:t: :i:
-IV II ;1Il;:~""
lilOl &;~.!!e~itlc'l&
:S!~~o!!le:l~ge
o _~=.c >-a- 4li r.ti..!!.!.
ci~',2:.!! tt) ~- 0 C(i CI,)- c:
:;: ;: E ~ 1i III ~ '.~ '$ ~::o
~Ql8!:S 1)J:l'-.=-
g.; eo ;.: e :1 c Ql 'g -E .1<.
'" C <=>,- 0 ~ o:S 0 9 'E
.....'=";5.~1li 1:1- ~ s 0
;; ~ 2-0 !.I.. il ~1l ~ Sl ~
;f-~~ {IO 0
.q~ c~.;j 1::'6 c
:i2.;it.!!!:=l5~:E
~';:'G ~ ..~... !.f i
. cs;.<=IIl=]-~>
o.o.._.;c...::>o~g
:l:iilOclllli5:-ts=CJ
!.._~_~~"2",o'R
.Si!_c="oc.J!!g"'o
1i'flt~il os.~>--;;...
-e~jf:I!E.2jj
~.. ~.s; 0 i ~ 0 ~ ~ ts S
if 0; 2'l-llS l5 ts.i!~
=ij~.! !~.c 8! i
,~ .S ~ '5.:& !. ~ ~ .. III
!!:! .s.S::> E.~ os,,
~ ....1: ~ I ~ ! ~ ri .-::
liil.!.'lo'O'!l!"'r/lClCO
...3i Illl_C=<Dlj!CGl;:;;
e!fl "C-_4itioGl'
:c ~ !i... ~ 'i_. ~:S~ Qj:S I ~
.. ~~ii~-8I~a<D>
~~~l!.3~;~ ~
0. lS 0 E 8 ~ \InS 8..! 0
.siii
~.8~!
g:; g'"
'" J: - m
]CGlJ;
Illa:s~
\II~. !.c
sa~a
.!! g.&~
,S ,o"'O.=,
!!:o~i
S! ii Q>J:
- =.$.1t
"i -.$ 11>
.~ -eo! ==
S~'82
S:..__
O() .g .2
cS:$~
.2~ J:l .. 8,'
li '~>-.
e .. ell
S~ i;-!
.Sg!!1i!.
~oi.l~ '
'1ia;.....-c: :,!
:0 .~. ~~'~ '~l
~ ~..'_ ., 0 .
% IV Q.'5
tl~.!e2-!
-"!'u Co. .
z~i5i.$ ,,;
o. ! aJ:l.!,il
F-5:>-"I:: g,
-< -g -: ,2. ~.
YS]=2'd: ..
!!:: l! :l e'- 'c!
I-Gl'io~i ~
..I5}i"" So 8 B." ~
".: ~ 'iji :i641 <'
j
i\'"
::EF-
"'\.
'~f-
~,.~ ~
:~p ...,
-~
i!
I-\i
"0%
'h
cC:
i
c
~~
a:~
!~
.......
I
'8:
..
!
~)
~'ll
<<=h~
!i"
~::!..
wlt
S ~
i
~
1
NOllV3nddV 9NINOZffiI 1VNOLUaROJ
G
c'
~
Z
W
~
W
~
en
w
c::
::I
(/)
o
..J
U
en
is
~.; 'i
~ g ~
8,,; ::E
'~.8 ~
.~ i {;
~ E ~
() e ~
w: ~ ~
!5~ 'ii ~
11)" - ·
oil 0 ::E
5 g i~ 2'
a~- !; ~
I-~ 11>8 le
~f- ~~ ::
y-€ ...J:l~ ~
-'~ci,~ ~
&:':l~~
<8ss~ ~
~!~s.
0.- .... oJ
gBcj -i
!2c,tP ~
.. ~!Il.Cl ,,;
.!.'Io'!! ti ..
1:;"'.&li ..
3cll1qj !.
oa..g!; e
g.!li~ ~j
'l!S::i! mE
=~, 8lD
:=0... O::E
~
1:;
o
..
.,
QI
C
..
.5
II
i
iE~
ell ..
<5:;
~~~
.- C
~,~
i~
.:..~
e",
!!!..
!~
m~
~~
==
J:Q.
-Q.
....
:S'"
..J:
.-
...s::
tIl,<e:::
=~
.~ ,g.
il~
c
'ii,g
-'"
(D--
.- Gl
...J~
N
~
o
<Ii
..
o
c
..
::>
.c
g
""
ci
1:
Ie
\l>
C
1::
"'
Q.
C
-i
8-
I~c
~.g
.!!!1l
_c
ceo
,g~
~~
4i.!
.<=0
;e-
~8
,>>,5
J:C
....'"
I~ j~
00
10
~
~
i
E
;;
""
i~ .,;.
g ~ 8
Q._ 1::
~~i ~
~~~ o~
0- ~ ==
5@~"~i
.,~ .g'-II>
~!tl~,;;
~i !2lri
~~i~jii
Ooo.c>~g
~ l". ~11!S.
15 ~e E ~ ~
~Q.~~..5!
a::~8cc1:
c.. >- .Si!" .
1:: 0= 1ii.~"'.9
O.,N Q
c'-C -
,-.2 ~ ~~~
~ ~ 0 ~~
., -go"
~~- ~Q. !
i~l:l :;
-"00;" I-
~1s:.:lS a:
8;;g,..: j
.;
..,
~
a;
::l
4>
C
"iQ
'"
..c
i
~
'i~
o~
~ <I>
~~
i~
..0-
:J'~
..-
'E;'5
~g
~~
I'll':';
~'"
..~
.c."C..
_Ci.
I'll'"
~~
:; .5
:[l'j:
t:Qi.
.~:2
.J:J!
~.,g
-"'
"'-
,.- Q/
....;1-
~:
; 4>
,~
I' J:l
,g
I~
~
~
1::
'"
Q.
C
o
~ci
~
g
eo
....
o
;:c
..0
~i~
i ~'c
j~",
~~
..1:1 S
~~ S
~l5 ~.
oe- <;
=8 ';
~.s sr
.....c a
4>:>
~1 j!
4>0 I!
i3 l5 f"
X L'"
s
~
8:
"'
i
~!!~
pi
~~,
..,..l:
N
,.,........,. ',' ........,._. ,....._.'"c,:.,.... '"u
OCEAN PRQ~ERTrES~LC
Agenda IteQls15,t6,;.~,17'
Pi!g~J.15
,':: '",:::'_::;":':'-~'<:::;
I- tie o Ql c:::'~
III j i.~
Z ~10~ iii sica: N_
W !.,a <<:1=_ .S .9- Gl ~ 0 > ~ .,$\. -ill
~~ 2i'O~ <ll.8~ ,U
~ -- c
:E c ~ .c="'8-" 8 ~ 6--2
\w.:t:(6 C1 en &_ C ~'< f t
W :€'@j" C 'E-- jg c .8 C <1>"" ~.9-< cG.!!-~
I- ~8'E - 3: "CI 0 01._ ".c ~ ~ II:
3:", G;:o~:g~~igg~ 'Oc.!.c a:
~ .o"C 3: ~ 0 "
~..i J! !.~ =.!g'.cis l!!E",.!.-e ~.:8 -.\,1 i'") ~ '0 .~
(/) ,,go i ':~=:::.c~~ i ~lh CO '" g'JS ~
c:4i.. ::s,Y.,_ = ~~!li
;~ E 0..- E?- ...- 0 .S! '" c: ,:=-atoQ..
W :~8 liaE :c ce e 7i i ~ ~3 ;= .!! i 8.] ~~~~
a:: III .~ .c.c. ~:8.!=.. ..o'l;lE2
::> --> 'i~~i Gi~u=: ~
i 0.: ~~~ .2 .. 1lI - l!! ~ e: 4> .. i!: ~
I (/) e.!Ol l!!r.:-fE~_O,s",~c: --lll ~~ci~~
9 =2-;~ "E- e--- QJ-I!!~-- ,0 !<<ia 'S;-C:<I>_
.~ g'~ llI.B$o&f,& 8.ti l~ 'i .s.5 .. c!.eJ!.c€
u ~--c: E~~~ /L<(II)/L
;:) 'i "g is 1i-...I ~2!it:lJ~..:..~
(/) 85""8 ei~ ~~'fl2
6 ",o"C:-"'~kl
-'~ ~ ~ lll.... ~~....$= 0 ..s 8~$.g
t)nI-CD . ~.B ;;'!kilE2".!j~
!,!=g~ ! c tl'~~ Ii iij e.!S c: --,1! Q. 'E
"';ii5 ij~ ~Gi
0"'-"2: ~Oi: .. oCt:) ~ClI 00- t
..J='s$ c:.!!,!=-i E]i ~ &~g,1Jg>
~ : g'- .Q.~~ ,g.!!? c:,SBSOl .!!?.... "";;: Ao ~ ..
o=:-.l'H ci :c O'h i ~ 0-:: CI> i.8~.s!!'" E'O!~ ~ c:
1= ! 19 gi~~ ..
~ - II> i.c: -;, A.Je: !c: _. 5
-_1lIz:: c.: b2,s -'~"~E III 'O~j;s
0.. c: 'ibl!!;; ""-e: e:tIl,,- lllolD
~.5t~: ~ I e 11 ~~ i,e:=g'l~ i 0 l:i .-S i.g.~c.E
.. ~.. CO Cii ...c!!= ..-ill) -~=>.U)
.... ~:S 8:;' i!: 1:: c:
i;.J ell g ~i!:g,!~ ~I.!~ __'EfO.
. -s~. B i '8u"
1.) !=. E ~ ~~ 8 - Cae: g k C:.c:2 .
: lS.fi CI) !!;S.e.8.l:~ ~ o~;., -~.l:1~0 .
~ ell ='fe: .c!!!1Il~Q) ~eJ! ^ Z...:S~E
8) jfi r:: j " CI' i~lllo a;:e.. 5":
;:!'O~ 1iS~.!!?<S'O~"'''lIlC:s;! o CIS a2i' ~
0 i==~"-
i~"lii~ 'E l!!'6..tf ~:s :~.5=;~61ll,?
g:>!!.... ::> Jf:sl< :,=,g.i Is,s'OCii!~ c'Bs:,g
...ltti;,; ~quj .- .9) ~!].s 2'a. ,l'!
.a.e -ii -.- N .:. j'c II co;S g r'"
'iij 11 .~~ "'0 .. j:Q)j6Ei co
.. '.. e,-c .! ~Q)c ~;,.::>~ .
--~c: tca~ =.. ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~i ~ 8..8 8 m ~ j. ~ 8 ;,;,1
.!/! 0 S 8~:S
....-.. II):E CJ_ ..",0=0
.
.,"
<"C-
I-
Z
.'W
:E
W
I-
~
(f)
W
a::
::>
(f)
o
...J
U
(/)
5
~
~
8
c:
c
='
a;
.c:
is
(;
iii
:!~
:;)- "lii
SJ 0
rl Ii ~~
E~ ~:
...~ !!!l!l
z... ~<Il
<( i >>'=
Q.e ;;,..o~
..JClIc:j~
a. A'!j; -
Cl. . l5 "5
c,g:g:e~
~coQ)~
Q.,s~J
iH.:.S!
lilac,!
.rt e.g 0
C 8 g;1i
~ r::.. .
15.:8 ~ S
Q,~=.e
:i~~
:a
~ 0"":
..
Gl
Q)
..
s
Iff
.8
E
Q)
E
e
8
;g
01
c:
i
c:
'"
~
~
~
E
~
~
j
E
'"
:ii
g>
"g,
c:
..
:ii
~
..
...
..,
'S;
'"
o
U
..;
..i
,.;
'"
'E
<I>
Q.
e
~.8
~H
O~
I I.i
j !l
i5
g
""
Ii
E
I!
'"
c
1;:
g,
r::
.s!
e
~~
8
..
5':
:t:8
.!!~
_c:
e:",
g~
A
I iJ
,.!~
;;e-
11 ~i
",;,
0-
~~
l~ 0
~
e
III
..
..
Q)
c
0;
"
'"
J
.!!!
iE"8
~:;
0...
~~;
:g~
.gl!
..-
-E~
Q)-
~s
=,;,.;
~~
t'C=
.co.
- cQ,
....
,s.,
..=
.,-
Ill&:
:j
,5 a.
~~
c
=0
c.o '';
-..
.. -
"- Q)
-'-
N
r[
.8
~ i
1 E
"eo 0
.~ (; S
i= tg
:! IIl.~ 'ii
:;) E ~ '0;;::'
fI.)~.c ,,'
gee ;~
CJ~.sQ~~
~!t:liSC.,
OiS'-~lD'=
<<~!2 ig:5::
W,G:t~>.""
~~~li~
OO'7J!!~
~ f.~ !:g s
Iepj~~~
o~e- ...-
a::~fn5e:.8
Q..~ =.0
_Ill~s-
~':'2 0 ~
,g II> ~~ ~
~~OCl>,?
"'o-og...
~~.$! - 0..
:;::;Q,)t"OiQ.C1f
..! e 8.'~ ~
.!!! 0..5- III
~.! g!Ls
(5~g~
'E
~
J:
..i
~
.c
II)
oe
>>
l!!
'E
o
()
ci
e:
.!!!
<(
~
e
<I>
:g
<l)
e:
'in
:"
..0
i
i
E~
..jij'
S:2
~~~
,- l:
i~
~.~
~i
!:t:l
!.~
oa:";
t5
oa=
.cA
-0..
Ill.,
,se
...c
Q)-
...c:
gJj
is.
;,.c
,D."'
e:
-=0
CD:
,_ OJ
..!! "i
....-
Ii
E
..
!~
g"
I
I
I
I
I
i
.~
,
I
I
!
j
I
I
j
i
i
,
I
Ii
;;:
i
1::
..
0..
~~
e
~
8
..
""
o
:t",
.fl.9
~~
~'2
ol;
~o I..
~~ I!!
~i Ii
=8 .2
"" c I"
e'c l_~
Cl "
; 45 Ii
".c !:
~'O !'"
(.l 6 IN
>< L"
N
!
~
~
&
i~~
Iii
Ui:l.a:;
OCEAN PROPERTlESj[.LC
Agenda Ite~s1s,i16, '.:' 17
:Pa 16
.~"~
~~-
~~~
ill
~ ..
~
~
~
'"
e -J: v.
~ ." .:J.
., .
~ S'-.\ ~
.~~~ >-
~~~.,j
~ ;~~! '~
z:. '1:::I: g'\IJ
_ ~ ,:I:",
~i~~~
:9 z: _~.cZ
~~,!~~
O...l;IlWo..
S2~
t;c:_ "
,5 ,g..'!~ ~ ~
a.Gi ';;;~~Q.1i
.:;. s; ." .8 ~ as ::l:;: <(
loot,($6~ _~c>Oit).
",..",m:!2S",c>:~j
~~~i'2;E:.~~(j;
o:~e.lll -0;.,:::; ~~;;; c
:c c c !!! -.; ii ~!! =>- ;:;,=
""0&:5 -. eO
e.,"'.:; .. J::I''U~:!l
:l3!!"<=-~Slg~"'o,=
!! C r;?}';: -,E fA - = ~ c
iiO 'co -- u c>> _~... - 0
:i'&ifl:ilf'& &.~~ *~
~ !~~..i ~ rh;:; ~
..0 e-!ti>",~;;"E
tP_S:...5i-ocee
E;.i ~ i~~ ",!." 4>
s.;-i:..c:-1h)~~
.t=",-",o..",.;e..,a.".!Cl
.. ~-e!~o;."'i;;:O~
~I'! !'tGlC:=!-.lIl(S
-'j( SlieSc: -'
s.o....<Jli....E !!-o
e.:!=:e-g-15..!lj
f~s~i~~~iiis
.~l> ~!!15 to; o.!ii~
=: gij.! ~~ ~i" ~ ~
!...S C:occo.l:: ..l;I)
!s.g.8.l:l~~l; ~"
.D!.c",gS..8~i'Sl
'l:!c:-~<> 4>"!!...~$":
s..e.!!!!;'O"''''....''<=>
.!2<6 S ea......&-= '>> 0 ceDe;;
Ie:! .lIli'l:!i.i:5Q:~
':'~~~El!!:5-'l5c;"N
.. T=-"&4>".l!j""
1 g i ~i -g) !!l r:! ..
.."'<ll",c:;:;'" ~ "8
:g,gse8.si!& 0
Q C''C
..9.l!!
?.o:;g'
t$ ~ a"';.
=.=~Z
"g"',!'::
..:l3-.2:
8 .~~~~
::c.,;;a.
.~ g. &)
.s c." =-
1!!:5i'i
~- -
}! ~.~~
;: _.!; 4)
S'Es,s
,,5-8,2
8.......
&.,2.g
C-s Q.
:l3c:&~cri
..,g"'''' 0>
E5~:t>;
~5ii lt~..
._1;... _...
!!e:ll12
_~Cl1l!:5 ~
IDg,.-'ti.E ..,
=~ ~~!
~!!!'c 8,.2 iX'
8 c J e ~ 3~
- ~.2 Cl.ili ..i
Z ..;:5 1-'" .;
o! a'3~'!
~'O.2"o
9~i!g.J: ..
i!:ii'3g:eii
$-g!::R~ ..'!
_::>..,51';;;; >-
0_","''' Cl
I-
Z
W
:z
w
~
en
w
0:;
::>
en
9
()
(/')
is
i'2!
0.=
..;:;
....
~~ili
l(;jj
"o"g
.~ e '"
~....;
:~.~
-'!o~
'5: Q. i
It)e!~
wQ.o=
c:=--c
S~~~
..I J~'"
~!~8
Q~'5f
;i;::
~i.Sii
-j-gg
!:: ;:;"'-
c:sS~~
~a ~ i.!
..;o,.~ 8
lS'Clll~
!fB~
c: Q..G-
8:il-g
iil!
~.2' ,,,
""~I'"
- 8
:e~"a
:!ls3:
..
;;1:5-
__ 0
00_
cc.2
;!!8'E
'i~O
$ 8.~
.!-~ i
~ea
~:5.
Q.~ ~."
:Ce Cl
.~ l?1
.i..-'
..",-0
"'CD"
.."'Ill
, ~.!!
l!! Q.s
=~(/)
~.."
-0. -5 ~
:c !'
)!,h;
1l! >>e;;
e'fl tc:.
c:-.~ N
",'0 III>
>." C~t
:!2-~
..15
'3.;e.co
~i~~
CJ'- 0
..-O~~
~jl..
- ill -
~ go"
g=J
Sgs
~.
IV
I
i
!'g
'8
ill:
"
~
o
0.;
~ III
~ I
i J
~ oe
a'i
'E ~
~qW
...11: ~
.. <( >-
~~~
If
I l
....;:- I .;;
$ "" .&
c: I g
.~ ..
" I c
'" .9-
'" .s
-g III ~
'"
.; '" !
~ 1::
i '"
,!II co.
,,; iii I c
& <>
.t= ""
g> ~= I
:I: - ..
~ ~a:
.- ~
:i :lb:" I.
g~ III
-0 ....
w t~ Q
oe I :01:.",
.. !::: .12 ,g
.. I
.r:: 8,:s. (;j15
'"
::l "'.:.: ~.~
:I: ~c i
~ ..~ I ~~ ..
B ::i 8-~ ..
U) 2'" J
~ _Cl ..'"
"'= :8- I
1 ;= ,s8 .2
!li ~t: g,
'" ...9- ~>;: It
'" ",.c ~: t~
;r s:;'" ~~
Ii c I ","
:ag 0:
" 3~ .!o
.. r~
~ u13 i)
in N X
QQ.
! I;
I -,'.i
i ::J
Ii i
ci
:c
e
.~
iii
c.
e.
j
l!!
&.
8
I ~ cO
t :oI:.:l3
.!!~
-"
"..
8f?
=0
g:~
..e
.:;g,
!~
~c
","
g~
8'ti
o
i t
8- s
g .
~ j
'" i
I E
ff
i
j
E
j ~
":0
~o !!
i: i
w <:l ~ 'iii
~~'!!l "O~
~'::~ II\>
c:H~..E;
fj)~":gt~i
Q ~ ~1! ~
ct. -,~ 1!.=: -:=_
~ ~ ~-;~~.
~~ 1t;r~
>-;"''''ll'!E~
....jOc.u....,;.
~~]ri]
l1l>:Sc'~.!
a.?:-.:l3 ~ u
15~!:l~li
il}~f
,;~'i~~
SQ,leQ.ti
~ ~ ~~ j
"'Q.S-'"
~,!,,!l,g
a;g..;
}-
c
'"
~
'"
CD
c
!
..Q
..,
~
@~
..t::'
o!
-~~
~t:
..l>:
fL~
tj
!!.",
&5-
CIJ~
~~
!15.
~i
-~
!:e
~'j
~
g;~
,g~
=.9
<:l_
~!
N
.
~
<>
'"
c
';;,
~
...
:::
~
~
:!2
>
..
o
<..i
..i
..i
",'
e
'E
8,
e
'::}
toe
8e
0::1:
I-
Z
W
. ~
I-
~
w
IX:
::>
(/')
g
()
(I)
is
v. _.c .Y
OCEAN PR~J?ERTlESlLC
Agenda Itelrts15,16,;!jt7
_P~'9!J~.
.'
11
Ii
e
I-
Z
w
.~
w
~
l-
(/)
w
0::
::J
Cf)
o
...J
(,)
Cf)
is
I-
Z
w
~
W
I-
~
Cf)
w
0::
::J
(/)
o
...J
o
en
is
tstii
.....
a,'"
..ts
....
;~&
Ii.!
co '0 -g
8 <0
.~ ~.;
~~~
Glee:
~ :51
l')E -: g>
w~o=
a:=-e
;:)"'a:'"
0<;""8
g~.i~
0..-...
CI).::o8
iS~$'~
..1=",,,,
~: g>..!
0:::0.5
-<D",g
s-ig~-;;;:
:)-1;1;.:
~~i.;!
O:O~8
~~~!
ts 8.~lt:;
! es,;;
c: "'J!!:=
8jllliS
5"1ii~
~!e~
]! .. q;
'ii \ll.!.~
--:1:1:
:Ss~3l
.,;
J
g
sf
..
J:)
E
l ~
'0 t
ls 8
vi is
~lll 0
~s -a;
~2 0
ag- :i-s:
"'II: Ei;;
is. .~~
....9- <Il R
z.c. :5a;
-< ~ >0:::
OC..J:):'!:;
S! !,rl~
~ e.s!.e'S
8~s~
~..~~
e-:S l\l ..
8~.:~
,,,'is.ClI;l
..E~.Q
~8~~
~&"'e
'is.'-= ~ ..
'" EO - e
:<~~!ia
;5 ~~ Q.
=:0_
~
!!!
~
8
c.
C
:0
o
Ii
~ J
...J ..
.., '8
E It>
~ ~
< ..,
& 8
"$ .~
.gqw
.Il. E
ic(~
~~~
g>
0>
co
e
<0
::l:
c:.
Ci
l-
E
~
~
...
'"
.Q
E
Q
::E
0>
c:
"r
c:
'"
::l:
~
{!.
:!2
>
'"
o
o
..;
..;
,,;
<l>
€
...
g-
O:..
c.8
"'E
8..
O::l:
'"
<:>:5_
<=- 0
00_
e: C.~
"'8=
i...a
!l 8.~
.!o 5
S'g E
ai ~ E
=-~
0. I!! 0
~~~
.~ g>~
s':;
!..c
'V....
",.01) c
~ 8.:!!i
OlIt>CI)
~~!
I ,;C~
C4U'J
:2: ..
.,c C .
a!,gc;
1i~!~
!ill u.
~=8'"
,!lI 'g .. ":
r~~"8
:l.?:o2(.)
fRt)'GJ .
~~~.~
0'- 0
.... 1:) ......;
~~f~
... ~ Q.'ii
8.g>e:
;.; ,- "'.
ug:E
1;-
c:
'"
..
co
..
<=
Iii
'"
.Q
j
.!lI
IE""
llli
6~
-~i
.!! :::
~::
~:::
..:.'5
is
ig:
tU'E
~,g
.eo.
-0.
..'"
:50
...c
..-
VJ.c
:l'~
,~ ,9-
",.c
",'"
t:
=0
<<1=
-l\l
~!
...
.si.
.c
e
€
ftI
0.
C
a
:;:::l
ca
~
8
l\l
....
OC::
~,g
.!!~
_c:
C::ca
~i?
=0
1ial
ca-
." !!!
=~
;8
G>.S
.c.c::
",,::>
<> ..
'. !~
,Uo
10
a'll
~lii_ .:
5g.~'5 ~ >
~ ~ 7i;~8Q.tff
-: ~ ." 1: g ""= ;;;c <
Ii: o!:2i i~ ~ ~.~
=~.S:iig!E0!g!
': ,,-7; .."".;:.... :.;.!!!.!!!
0.""'<::'- "'", 0 e!l! l!! c::
:2 c E e Ci i c:.. ~ Q=
~::8~=..!z:fjs~
,g"lIll-e:r:eGliii~,g
ClS~=-iE~eO=Q)e~
Qi - ;.- U ii e ... ~ ~ 0
,;j~~tfz !.i~ 8~
!!i~';~~:i~~
;~:fG=~=tC::5:E
c'='! a; 5~ II> "'~'S..
"0. ilii:S.. e='gCi c:: ii
.- ~ '" 0 .. ca.?:o.j;! ... II> 0
~:r:.Qc~_ii 0=_
a!l2='iiO'Ej~~~
1i~ Cisz~.!!! g>~..;...J
15 Gl <l)~'" III J!!.8 'Es an!!
... ;;; .J:. = J!! iil E 0.= ..
f~:; Ie~ls8~l:>.!!!
<>>,g.-g> .!?it5'-.!!!
...c:: 2-- - t'i ",J!!CQ
;~.!!!e:g><ll~8.!il
.5,gSc:ec o.~iS..(I)
~..9!"g.8_'~Gl OJ!!",
'" ! .J:. III 8e "" E ~ ~,;
al~~O..'i~!Illl!!="':
.. '. c:J! 0"'0 CD ro co CD, cO
E:e~:c:,5~f1~c:~
"".8 '-~1:Illll:-0.cN
:t '" g>~= l!?=-'01i-;;...
.. 2"5 c: &~ ~ jg' ~ € : CI1J
c...I>l!",_'''':oo"" III
l!!c:ollle'il=CIle",,-g
~ 8 5 E 8.5 i:5 !..! (.)
..
o
<Ji
'"
'"
c
..
'"
&>
g
0::
t!i
1:
~
.!
11'0
~ 0
"" .
~~
w..~
!5 e.;;; iii
(I).gj ~~
gl'~f "'~
oe-..E$l1
en (D loC:_ ~,'~ IS
is il]9-';e CD ==
O::(IJ!~5~
~i$~~i
~it~iii
o -Sl ~~
j!::~a.!!!o~
~ ~ ~ Ii 3
o Q,~ ...e
a::'!:;gc'C!
CLtGJ~!.9
~.=.~ ~ ~
,g 41 &i;' ~
* ~ <; g~
.~ ~ll Q. Q.
:S8.e<ll~
,*E;~;!!
-a Co.gJi.i ~
E.!s..J.l:;
8;5~
e
8
is
o
:5
'e
u:l
<(
""
C
1:
'"
.c
~
~
..
..
c:
o
..,
<
'"
e
'i
""
;;;
:.::
..,
=
's
CI)
:i
Cl
0.
o
15
c::
<l1
0..
">0
:0::
c:
""
'"
'"
!
'jj;
'"
J:)
:i
.!!!
IE~
~55
0.,
-~8
.!!!~
~:;:
~~
~ii
e~
~s.
ta';";
~~
to-:.=:
=0.
_ 0.
"'01
SCD
..-:
~.c::
!I
~~
"'~
:a,g
.s
::;!
N
.si C '0.
~ *~.
;S.Q3 ~
8 Xl g''''
cv...c:;.... m
"CcCIJ:..c:
ig~~
~.~.d!
--'Q..cn Q.
.!!!i&j
,5"""':0
~= ~i
~! g>n
OS -'- fJ)
s~~~
~lHls
8"'..
5$~!
""~.Q"q:t
ga l~i'
,20:: Q.o~
.5'g;~ ~
G)C""'ctIo.
e '0 .~ .; ;S
caa-'lijs
-:'8 ~i;'~ ,;,
~l!!'C:: ....2 .
8c~e-gq
- g.~~ij
~~ii~'!
j::5..:o_-
......,,2..0
"'C .!-
~ ~ j - goo.. .
j:Gli5'E~ c
ffi~iS_~~ 8 >.
0_.. ",,,,OlXl
III
I : ~f
i""
!c:L
i:E
i e
I€
1&
Ig
i~
, <>
!~
! "
I l\l
is
,~c
!i' co a
-;;;
I ~.~
~g,
! i;' c
; 8.i
I ~1
i!~
f e'c
I~=
;~1!
, !!:! Ci
io~
t
;;;
.Q
E
'"
::l:
""~
,50 I..:
~~.:.t: Q)
~~'E :!!
.",.-t::o
~~CI):
~, ::x: <
.....8.2!~
~~.e'=="
:2:Z..~:z
~,~im,€
0... a.. :.::'"
g~8
_.~'O~
lt~;<
;1;
. >
c. Co
= r::
"
~
~
"
x
..
'"
g
~
-
S
..
~
;<
t!
i
l
f
i~~
~'l>ii
HI
u...l
'., ."'- ,.;.~-
: .-~ "."
,
OCEAN PRfDPERTIES'ILC
Agenda Item.... '.s."<.1. 5,.:t6,......8.')<.;.t.7
.. ... . ,PQ"; 1B
,:~_.::.e, ~'~,.
Jj'
Ii
.-
z
UJ
~
UJ
~
.-
en
UJ
a:::
::>
en
o
..J
o
en
C
~e
0..'"
rJg
.s:EiS
':i~ j'
.. "0 "2
8",01
~a;0
~~~
eel:
:20.:
e11 co
m~o~
a::~-C:
~o!~
9 ~~ ~
VOle'"
~=c:8
cOl-~
.,J5.sc
~: so!
c::g'"
E!!ol-
g~.E.E ;e-
<~~l!
l!!~~~
~ 8,S;
!~SU
'E Q. c=
8j'ia
i."- ~
i!!$
~Ill
:is::
(,.)
a.:
! !
~ ~
! ~
<( <Ill
t ~
~(,.)w
,.;0.. ~
t~=
0:F:~
$I
1)"'_
c_ 0-
~~~
t>tUC
i~g
j2 8..S
,ti:iS ~
<!l.:;E
-me
.!.r:~
0..;0
:.200
"'::-
~~g
J! ':~
!~C:
",:g'"
'", &o,Sl
~:~
E~:
3...0
.J::....
~ i '" .
.208(;
Ifi~
;e-.- ~
_!!l"2~:
iiG'g
i~to
'l'-lIIc
;:!o>
!~-tf
~~i~
- GI 0....
(Sg>;
eo..,Sl
gg.5
~j- ci
,S ,g..!th~ >
lS~. i;~8Q.lS
.r: .:; 1ll':; CI"" --- c(
::1ll~~.Q81\l~~i1i
e"Cll",~"'a4>C;;;'"
=.!c.::a'!E"-.g~
o ""Clll:l:- '" -<<Ill>
ci~e.!!l" "". 0. ~ 1lt4i;:
:.2 ;: ;: ." 16 i ; -.; E ;;:
~:8.!=..5.s~,5~
.2.....- f" c 4> ,,'"'.!.1
16lll~r,;rO!O';:",o'2
-.,S ;.eel' 'ii} i" - 3: 0
-~ -15"''' 1i.!~o
(\\ .cli' u..Q :g II> ~ -
"'l!!. 'e~oil. ~l\l~O~
C(SlI1cW-!!!"" "s"'E
J1.... c: o~,=..l5 ~.lll E
E-lllI-<=S.....!"'C>
, c"']lIllll.l:-g_O;;:;o.
0.1. ... c: - 0 ii: Q
:.2 ~'O="'~_..~Cl
~1i ~].5o..!1 ~~~
.2J!!!!- !!llll.lia....,!! 0
1ii x'aS.D 1::.0;.5.!. <<1-'
-1Il -"',Sl.DEO-'"
!!.J!.;:.e Ii En'; i
li'5cgc;-sio<l>
i&ig>I!!!~oo.i
..,s;: !:= ! ='0 c: .. -;; U>
iJ..i~~.li~~.e!
j ~ .9- 8 .::: g lI) ~ o..!! '.,;
il;l ~ ~~i! I t.~..:
- ..!! i.!!! Q'O lI) '" '" III. C 0
.!l!3! Ill_C';:GllDClll;:;j
e.. ,!!C-_a;'=Olll.
:ti g>b~I!.;:io;~.:::
N Y"6""C4lll).~Cc>"",
I~ :fl1:~:S ~J C>
"'Sc Co<>",(l) 4> 01>'8
0. oEo.5lD';:0..Dt,)
A."..
-
.
.-
Z
W
~
W
~
t;
UJ
a:::
:::>
en
o
..J
(.)
en
C
I J
'"
8. .s
8 'II
~ ,g
:>E
:; <II
:5 E
o E
~ ~
U4111 0
~.5 'i
<<l '" -
o.E 0
rle I~'B
!!!,s E..
Q. ~ ~
...~ !8
ze _<b
~!,,~~
::; a 2''0 li
C. Q.'~ ~-
~,,__ii
:8:2S~
i!o -0 's.
&.:5i:i
8~=.2
:~5~
~8~~
~'-c: m ..
~g!~
g..~ ~ ~
!~;:; [
-~.
::0-
2'
e..
'"
'"
'"
:E
~
:?
E
to
;;
~
l.:
,!
E
..
::E
0>
c
'6>
'"
c:
'"
:E
?:
~
:;;!
>
<\'l
o
U
....i
....i
.,;
co
r
<II
0.
E
Q..-
c,!
:ilE
001>
0::
1:-
'C
o
..
~
-.;
2
'i
:i
e"'"
",ie'
ai
-;e-g
.!.!!<.:
l:=
,,~
!-s
c..
!::
!os..
\'D';";
<l>C
~~
= 0.
_0.
"''''
=c
..=
e-
~..c
lll~
~,g.
,gi
c
1i'~
-...
.,-
-Q
.....M
'"
I
)
, I
I !
I I
I
\
I
I
I
I
...
o
.,;
..
<II
'"
'i)
::I
;;;;.
~
ci
:.2
Ii
~
"
.2
]j
~
8
III
~.:
<l:8
rat:]
:::'2
"'Ill
.~ ~
'5.",
i',Sl
IP!
=~
ell
05
.::c
~:3
g~
0:5
o
'!I
,!
E
i E
.,s
i~i
It:l ~
&!ii 1\
iol::,g 'O'B
9"=e =:!
u e ..... E 11>
q)~"":2'l!1'"
6't>~~C>~
ffi~;""=~
Z"i1';:~""
~i..!1i!1:i
OoQ.lI)~.\!!
~~~lj~
a::&]jE/i"
~~~~i~
a::l'::8Sic}l
c.~ :l!S ~ .
8 :.~ i~
e-=iofi
.g"'QI~a;
lil~a8.i1
';~'il e:g.
S&.E~qi
,Sle~5~
,!!Q.8-"
~!.5!i $
8;3"':
-
.s!
'5
o
a:
<IS
c
f
~
j
E
'"
:::E
Cll':--
c: ,-
,- ""-
g"
c~
lQ -...
::S"
a;~
;;~
.....
"0;2:
.~s
cD:
siii-g
l:! """" ""
~ ~ 6-~g
c2! ~
'\:IC!'::
i~-.S?
c.~ "'25
s~~ a
Sl i &oj
,541"0:>
E.;:i"i
c- -s
~~.~..
~ _J: 4l
~S"Es=
ilii I...
c,E:"Sa. .-
~6:i~C> E
; €~~.gE i f
. ;2 "" :to 0 ; ~
s ~ ~.~ ~ i .~
'I: - '" ~t.>; >
mi~~ ~j
o 11 a.D' 1 ~ '-j\ ~
~-M::I-:U ~/' i;
<"';2"'.90. 5l' ~
ulii..;.!",e ':; :.?
itdi~-;::o... ... ~
mlj~l ~~ ~q.i~
U=lb-.;gOlD :;,.~
Z:-
;:
c
..
'"
ll>
C
-;;
,g
~
'"
e~
'teie'
<s~
-;e- ~
s~
i=
~~
.:.."5
!~
:g.s.
<<1';0,.;
CD'"
~.~
.c:'5.
-Q..
~:
==
"'.::
;~
-i..e.
,g~
=a~
_"l
::i--e
N
Ii
'"
c
'"
";;;
,g
g
<::
Ii
~
e
c
1::
'"
Q..
~
($
rt:
<IS~
i~
m€
:':1>.
~~~
t~~
~-~
do;
,r~,~
$ ~
!l.
I
i
!
i
i
I i
I I
~
e
g
8
'"
....
o
:1:",
0>0
~~
ic
oe-
f'D,g ,
!. oll ; I
e ~ Ii!.
;:5 ,.ti
~ ~ I2
..- c
e"c
'1:"
.::~
1~
t30
Ix
i~
~c.
Ii
~ 1;
11:
~.,
LIIO
~
~
~
~
jz~
~~~
~&~
ct!
.._,."-, '" ,.'" " , " '",--',.-,-
,," -'",,""", ',,'-,.;, ".;.-,:-..>
OCEAN PR(!)J?ERTIES,ILC
Agenda Itelri~it5,16,:~t7
Pa..>...~'19
. ,g........
.
.
.
.
I-
Z
w
:E
w
l-
t!
rn
w
"
::>
rn
o
...J
o
en
o
I-
Z
W
:e
w
I-
~
t/)
w
a::
::>
o
o
...J
()
t/)
(5
Q'!
&3
<1>0
:!.'l!-
.c:..cro
j~j'
"'-~
B~t4
'~!li <Ii
Sl~8
~ [~
'" ..
:i!!~
a::--c:
8tJ~
.....~~~
0..-..
!!!::gs
~~~l
~.I 1i
-..-g~ d
SjjJ ~ ~
~:~"I: ~
.. >O'~ O/l
<p::~
'S!.~lO: ~
:E~.i .r;
~i!:;; <t
~~if
:!i~
;l'~'i:
::;~~i
j i
! j
~ ~
e ~
~ g
.r; E
'5 -
~ j
&I,Iir,J 0 a;
g.~ is ~
8~ '0 :l
5~ ~~ go
!! "" i ~ '0,
cd Co> $
to-:2 ..~ ~
~16 ;'c ..
Ue....,"" ~
::i i E'i:z ~
a. ':l~~ :;
~ j'ii< o~>
-~.....~. ~
~....~
~= g.. q
!H.:~ j
=~~Jl
~8~.!:?
e c:LQ)
a e t4.
'as! .~
0.. UJ - -c
=.E1i:S
~ ~~-a.
.~ 0-
:l
I
<t
O/l
g 8
~ ~
~c..iw
.,;Q.. E
..< J!1
~~~
g>
~o
:q:I
<::
<Il
::E
~
."
to-
E
.!
~
tfJ~
..
:c
III
0-
e
Q.~
iZ
gg
O::E
..
<1>=_
c_ 0
00_
C:cg
i8~
J!l X~
..!loe
)( It) ;CJ
"cE
(C~E
=..~
.9-~~
~E-
~ Ol~
.-i-'
--."0
!!!c:
<<SOl"
~ 8.!
~ :(;3
Eli!
.s::.CI}
,9- ::
!i~...-
06_0
'i'fc;:;
- 15.
! e-N
~-8N
.!!!~~':'
iiCl-g
~fi~
c '0>
!!" ..:
~!:;@~
; '! 8.s
ll; a>"
a.c!
g~~
'>.
;;
c
'"
'"
~
0;
'"
.Q
-g
.!!
S~
~:
0..
-~~
J!c:
:2-~
~~
-"5
e...
!:::
~~
=i:@
~lj
!'a
_c.
~~
=..
~=
"'5
~'J
,= 0-
~~
c:
152
t;J!
- III
....1_
N
~~... ti
.E .g...u;~ >
= t 'ii~~ec.'lf
1 = <l>e-_~._<
...; " ~ li .:. g :if;; :l'::: .
~Cfla~:2Sa~a~!
=.!.=i5!E~EgE
o:"",=",J:'.~_"'j'.$~
Q;.==--~'" tQ.~ 0 c: ~ c:
~ ~ c ~! i i -~:~ ~i5
c:",8""-,,,o~-.-ts
~. = as.=.~ ie (l) ~~=
~.=€lSUiii ~~ e ~ a
~!l '6<l1:l~.!l!jO
.t!4.Q~.u....D :0 c
..~'E~.;iE"lll II>
:; 0 GI~!!iij '" CO.!! CO e
Cle:lo;;:;OI>oi!liE
.E-;~j i~~~~3i ~
Q...~,,_.c:-eot5o
~~~~~~~;o€~
gJ9~='iO~E.'!I;:';~
;~~,5S c!.~iGl'"
e.! ~ ~~.i~ E ~~!
f~.E ~: Cl ~J '" ~!
..e.o; ~!.J coo_(;3
jiji~fill~~
::>.!!.9-<:S~~~8~~'.
~ !! ~ III 0 .. ... E at.!!
il:'liloel;"!!=e~...-
m:.mc:fO"!CD. .o~
~~~.!lc.E=e~6Cl'?
:t.g~~~l!~~'O~~~
... ! 15 C CIl:! -8'; ~ 6 g <0>
e-E;i~.g:5;2!!.g
~ 8 5 E S .5 i = !..! (.;)
I 6
Ii
1 ~
j ,~
lE
I .
IE
1=
0:
:2
!!
..
€
!
to
,g
~
8
..
!-.
i~
,!!!~
_c
a~
.g 0
"6.""
i"s
e!
=8.
!8
-0..5
.c:c
".=
1~
00
o
!Ii
!
~ i
~ E
~o I'i
"'cs ~
l: ~
w"'l ;;;
!lg o~
0-' ..~
cj~~o~"
!!~dci1!~
C1:>:2l<GlC
~ tl'). fj).&:S~-
~'iili~~
~i'lij~-g'fi
Ooc...~.s
~~~i15~
ffiff!fi3
~Q.~':Gl.s
o::o.::8cc:,8
G.~e:tlg~c
5 .!! ~ !Hi
.;;...=5..-
~ :!1 &e is
'll~oo~-€
'" ,,-<<;
.?J ~ m e 0-
s !. mc, 0"
s p ~~ j
t;~~g
8~'g~
N>.
,'"
C
Cl
'"
..
.,
c
...
.5
j
..
~~
~lll
0.,
-~~
Sc:
:'2~
~:?i
!:s
~g
&S.
=.g
~. co
2~
_0-
ca, a:I
=Gl
0:
!~
4>3:
i~
~ .5~
'& ~g
- ._ tI)
~ :Se
~ N
j
E
~'0
g>;~
-;;,~
i'~
::E ...
.'r(
~....
Iii. ~
1-..
'Oz
"S;.-
",.5
00::
!!i~i
!".8~ 0)
~. ::> c:
~ 0'} 00';
~~ e:
""C2.:::
;,~-.,2
ID '" ~:o
2,~..s: =
-a_a.
.!i!i&j
.:5: Q:l ''0 ::J
!= Iii
! = c>ii
",,5,5 ili
!~,5 II>
-'2"""
~~.g:e
88..2-8
~ii~.; II
E ~ c; ~ 2' . la
Ji=io1'5 I .I~
..s~o=:!. 1 )0:
Cll g ~ ....!l l.. ..
~'O ij5 c.\I"V ~
2:9.-:c~ rJj ,"!
-~g>~'" "~
~-'i!'~o ..
8J;;.!ei...!'
- g..2 Q..;;...J
z~:gi~"
21 eo",,,,,, .. ...
....-....::)- C .....
<(~.s",g ... I~
Os ~Ole ',)
li:._j. -.'= 0.. ..'1!-..'~~
;:: 0 i a '2 s ..~' ~
gi'g -5 j g ~ :>:1
0_ .. '" .. <5 lXl < \. ,Co
",'
.,
'"
c
'0;
'"
'"
g
t,:
0:
:2
e
~
'l::
to
Q.
to
.2
I
III
...
o
:2:c
.11: ,g
V~
~i
e~
!i J~
Eli! I~
:~ 18
I 50 Ii
~ ~ i~
, !c Il
I G)::J '
, .c:.. I ~
1i'S,E
15 a LJ
1 x j,1J(t
'"
'"
g,~
-..
<tz
c:-
e.!!
<0..
.#;8
i_~~
<*,n
/f.. .~
~ ~
~
j
I
i
t~
~'l!a
"::E
81~
OCEAN PRC):PERTIESlLC
Agenda IteiPs15,t6,~17
P@~?O
,
~
6!',
.b
Ci
....
z
w
:!:
w
....
;5
en
w
a::
:::J
en
o
...J
(,)
w
i5
O!
Cl "
Q.-
~~
5~i
~aS!
;o-g
.2edl
2: lI> ",-
3:~!J
ClE2:
:~::!
(I) :~= ~
~;=.9~
::Jji'"
enls=@
9 ~~=.
C)IlIC'"
!2.&::c8
Q-:i.~
...~.c~
~ .. ~-
~~"g~
_~u..-.
8]~~i
cCS!88
!! ~~ l!
.siCl
U~ft~
e ~S;;;.
1: Q.J!l =
8lS~
~c='j~
::1--
r::r _..
..;a::QJI".
=-88
~~.~~
:S.s:3!
w
0:::
:::J
(J)
o
...J
(,)
(J)
o
d
a:
Cl~_
c_ 0
00_
e 'E^~
!q)~
3~8
s c.._
cliO c:
)(At)O
<l>::E
j.s~
- ,.
c.,ClO
:ECSC'
:gE..
g 2'.9
si"O
e Q) 'r;:
(C, II) ft'$
'", 8..'!!
fii",~
QlI!o
E!!!e
'c., -;;cn
:.c: cc.
.. i: c '
5i)gc;
;:. ",."...
.!!~-..,
!1~~
~.'= 8 ('OJ
,!!! -g - "".~
;2-CllW
.-..c:"O
.g ~g8
,,:g.c
c!o>
!.~ .""-
I'Oct!:e
9-,.gS.
- oil 14-
o ~;
e.- li
8~~
o Q
~15_ <'Ii
.:: ,.e.4J~ ~ >
i 41 ,~;~~~1i
S 5"0.<115."""'5:<:<
""Cl:lt;1f).o-';<<2COqjs
1t1' coQ<a32,!! i Q U) e 0
:5mc~5!E",!.ge
o..c::IC,i: '~...t'O~
o:~e.!!..~l52!;"iic
:c c 'E ! Iii i -g ,1; ;.~
~:8~:5mo.t3'l5.s_
g.!! Ill:::::'. E;ci,!"'''S~
,coe:e:=o~,O_CD~C
1!-;;:..;::.tlo;e'-<;j 0
.Cl~~~:.& !!~ ~~
~ f!i~"l ~ l3.I<S ~
..0 c.i?qs.._ <IlE
~-."ell;;,="O 4lE
C:-=-~ cs 5= 0 '" 4>,!! Ql
. jl:.twClI.t:"O:Sj>
Q. 'is.-fII)c:-~O.
:c:.- ,::J 0 = f1l~.a '-. :~
..3:.QQlc"'.!!!"Oo -
-i_;;.J::t;jQ-l#VJ, ~
~~:5~ =>!I! liig.3P'/.9
s S: 0'-: ~:a- ~!-o
!!1;j~ ~:5:;; ~ ~a.~ i
~:5S~iiS158i~.!
i:it; 2'.i ~ 5 5 (;.!i55
i~ig~~i~jj!
.;; l! Q. 5O,g sS.; ~ o..s. .
.&.'-~5 ~::I"
_.t= CD lS i) E ,i!
~.~; 0 _lS '" e III F;;..:
-;..1:$0"00......,=0
=i2~Cll_=:.lll=O;;
51: .!!i;1;jc:5o.!..:.
~ =>2'bE !!:5,s'OCi-..,j
.. ....-=1>... "_1:%,_
':'151':1:>> 1>......I:i!l~'
;.l::41l!!~1lJ~~~Cl
;o1:~1ll=<SElIl41'O'B
0.80 E 8.5 ell: 0..cC)
q;
J
...
g
"0
.'!!
e
<>
!?-
g
I:
'E
::I
Gi
:5
~ ~
o 8
w:' ~
~~ "ii
CQ!l _
0.5 0
dg ~~
en .l;: .. ..
50: c'""
!Z~ .!~
~.~ ..~~
::i 1i g>j: ~
t ':~ ~~
cc~~'5,$!
ei:s-
&_ E.
-s2!
8.5! e..
I!l' o.!'l.::l
.!! 58. "g"
~ 2tii
e C- Q ~
'ag.!Qi
~.~ i .e
!;:::; [
- gt ..
::=:0-
Cl
S
""
..
C
III
~
~
~
.E
.$
~
.!
E
II)
~
C>
C
's.
'"
e
'"
~
~
~
:;:;
>
..
o
o
...i
...i
r.i
.~
t::
!
<>
Q:"",
1:.,8
"'5
8~
1
E
'"
E
!
oj$
c
I
~
iii
'8
~
'"
g g
'E ~
is 0'
ll) .W
.; Do: ~
!ca5
en::i:~
~
""
I:
..
..
'"
!'
>;;
:)
.Q
1
~
e.....
<Il~
o~
~ 1;>
~15
.- <::
~~
~~
E~
~:::
!.S-
11$""
g!a
mg
1:;14
-Q.
....
:5i,!
"'-
~=
~.~
,~: .9-
=.&;
..c'.tJ'l
c:
i2
~~
..l.
N
I
!
I
I
j
! r:
~ . ~
f 'C
~ 'w
~ :::5
.c
g
""
Ii
~::c
I ~
r~
I.' i
~
'g.
8
.,
.....
~g
e~
:= 'c:
em
~~
&"0
1llS!
c :f!
:5e-
e8
os-
.c::
~;:
~;
<J~
o
i
CD
.::l
is i
.:5 E
-:=0 i
.-~ 0 8
~; 15
W<lI!' _..
II: s: .-
::JQ~ 'O~
<<I "" .Q ..'
9!:sf ;~
g~",:~~~
Q~~'iCll "
1I:19....2:5Jl::
~'i !:2 ~~
~. ~ !~i~
>cc'!]~
.....;so-os.
II: 4. il g-- ..
~~~8~~
~Jl::o.:~.!
Q.~u,g:ev
8: ,;n '0
e,-CO(l)'
S ~ g,~(j;
al~O<D-2
..o"Cg.<'J
~~~Q.':
i ~ 8.~ i
~Q,8Hi2
E!.s.....-
8;5~
i
u:
Ii
::
<>
-.
N
Z
E
4>
:t .J:--.
Q)~
,S .t
g>~
c "
~ ,~
:t ;;
~~
(S~
....'"
:;:;2
>-
~.,S
QQ:
ciC'O
';~.~
5.0"3 ~
Ii ., <}'.-
re ~, e:
"0 :: <ll.c
~g=,~
Ql ~ l?:t3
5 ~~ S.
.!!g. &. 1
,; 0"0 "5
:o.cC"'O
-'-CQ)
! :; O).c
"C-5.s:i
f?'O~i,!
sirs c;
~_o_
~....""'
.. :0,.2 0
5 .s Jla
... 15~!e.8,
~"cl\lll/
.e ~ &~ ~
C;;;0MII#
Gigi!'iiO~
='OjJ:s
:!:9.-:Ci.S
-. CD 0) >. "
.;!:o.2<::'CC:.
1:'~;!..2 ~~
B ~ <<> O<S~..,
_ a.~Q.;-!
:it ~lq~,5'"
o ~ a$ ~
!:i;l!io~
5:! s'i~~~... g
!!: l!!:; <:: ~ 'l!", '~
~ .g il ~ j ClI' ."
W =>.;<.2l g oB >. "',
U_i:S"'ClIll)<.,
1:l
>-
..e'.
"':~
a:: 2
I::e
~&
~
1:
II>
..
'"
~
~e
:>
.c
'to
.'!!
,:.
s~
Illll)
0=
-~~
.9 ;:
:a:::.
~~
.:.:"5
~,~
~S
Ill""
~5
~'a
- Q.
Ill. III
;, 9!
0=
;-~
4l. 3:
.~:.g.
:;,.:=
.0'"
c:
=0
<Il. ""
-..
.. -
,- ..
..l.
11i
'"
4>
e
.!
.Q
g
""
0:
:c
!!
III
e
'C
..
c.,
C
.2
.!
g.
8
..
....
o
:Z:""
..f!.g
:uE
.~~~
~;o
~i
~'!
<:>g.
:58
:':e
!'c
..."
S::....
~!
115
05
Is
I~
dil
I'~
~
d!.
i~
'~
I ~
.0
iN
L""
~~~
"!~~
~n
-~-&
.
'"
j(
~
!
i
i
.,,~
"'_l:!
pa
~il
.....:
x
'--'-, ., ---,',,' , , ',',', - ,.
'. ,'. . "',',',--,,,'-. "
OCEAN PR~PERTJES~LC
Agenda Iteipst5,t6,,1.17..
PQg~>~1
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 4
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: The height of the building? Would you explain that again?
Eddie Bourdon: Only on the eastern side of the building?
Ronald Ripley: Next to Wawa?
Eddie Bourdon: Next to Wawa, in this area, the peak of the roof is 63 feet. It is 35 feet
within 100 feet of our west and 100 feet of Shore Drive. This is the section where the
under-building parking exists, and that is the section where the roofliries are most
complex. It is a beautiful elevation. You've seen it. That height is to create that
attractive roofline. That is where you get a little bit more height. But it is 63 feet. That is
certainly nothing spectacular. Three stories of residences with parking underneath.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you very much.
Joseph strange: Speaking in support we have Judy...
Eddie Bourdon: I apologize. The property owners are here in support. Would you all
please stand? These are the people who own some of those homes on that street. I'm
sorry Mr. Strange.
Barry Knight: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Judy? I'm having trouble with this name.
Judy Freitas: Penny Smith is going to speak for me. She is one of the homeowners.
Eddie Bourdon: It is a property owner. The only property owner that is going to speak is
Penny Smith. She should have put a card in there.
Barry Knight: Thank you. We1come ma' am.
Penny Smith: Thank you.
Barry Knight: Please state your name for the record.
Penny Smith: Good afternoon. My name is Penny Smith. Now I know what a hard job
you have. I would like to address the Lake Bradford condominiums. I am one of the ten
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 5
25 years. I'm the oldie, and I was the newby. Some of us have had children or have
children attending the Virginia Beach schools. You drive by and see our properties and
one might think that ours is in the lost corridor. And it is on Shore Drive. Our homes no
longer fit the area. Across Shore Drive is a commercial shopping center and there are
about 20 stores there. There is a condominium next to us, and Wawa on the other side.
Many of these establishments have made a tremendous improvement in our area but our
single-family homes no longer fit. These houses were built some 60 years ago when
things were a lot different. Shore Drive was a lot different when I moved here. Of nine
houses, only four that are situated on Shore Drive have City water and sewer and I am not
one of them. Also, the four houses on Shore Drive once had longer front yards, and have
given that to the City to widen the road. But it reduces our ability to landscape and
reduce SOme of the noise. Some of them are worried that it might affect the access to
Chick's Beach. I rarely go that way because of the congestion from Pleasure House down
to Great Neck. I go the other way. Anyone who lives on Shore Drive will tell you where
the traffic is. Our 3 to 4 acres is a diamond in the rough. They will utilize Lake
Bradford, which we have never been able to do. I couldn't afford to clean up back there
and have the beauty of Lake Bradford, and the developer will be able to do that. We put
up hedges and all for Wawa, but it is not enough and it is too costly. I think this will be a
benefit to everyone involved. The new owners, Lake Bradford, Virginia Beach schools
and the City's infrastructure. That is all that I have to say.
Barry Knight: Thank you.
Penny Smith: Are there any questions?
Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am.
Penny Smith: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition we have Steve Kohler.
Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Please state your name for the record.
Steve Kohler: I'm Steve Kohler. I'm the President of the Chesapeake Beach Civic
League. I was here back in January, which you probably all recall. I'll try to be as brief
as possible. Basically, our residents in the neighborhood received a flyer in the January
newsletter detailing this proposed project. At our January civic league general meeting,
we presented an overview of this project based on information from the public
presentation at the January 11,2006 Planning Commission meeting. So our residents are
familiar with this project. After both these efforts to inform our membership of these
issues, our civic league voted unanimously to oppose any rezoning of the property at
Shore Drive and North Oliver Drive, and that still stands on our record, and has not
changed. We also oppose this particular plan. In our opinion, this proposal has not
changed significantly since that time. In addition, over 600 signatures have been
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 6
collected in opposition of this project so far. I'm not sure if you're aware of that? Our
civic league opposes this project for several reasons, which will be presented by the
following speakers today. One of the reasons we oppose this project is because of the
approximately eight-fold increase in density for nine single-family homes to 77 or more
units. I do not believe that this project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
for this Primary Residential Area. The 2003 Comprehensive Plan states simply on pages
95 and 96, "the recent history of development in the corridor is characterized by too high
density on too small parcels of land", which I also saw was in the proposal, which you all
have now. In addition, the ULI (the Urban Land Institute) Bayfront Study states on page
33 that, "many of the communities are made up of single-family homes and should be
protected from intrusion of higher density development". There are single-family homes
across the street on South Oliver Drive. It is not all just a shopping center. And directly
behind the proposed development there are also single-family homes. The ULI study
says, "the density of new development of this area should not overwhelm the
community." Our community believes that the density of this project is still too high and
will overwhelm the community. Further, based on the Comprehensive Plan technical
data from 2000, the Bayfront area already has the highest density in the city at 9.4 people
per acre with the next highest at 7 people per acre. Given that the proposed site is 3.5
acres and the average number of people per dwelling is 2.33 and the Bayfront area is
almost lO-people per acre, would result in 15.5 volume, which is exactly what that current
zoning of R-lO would produce.
Ed Weeden: You have about 20 seconds.
Steve Kohler: I'll tie this up as quickly as possible. Therefore, the current zoning already
would allow the area to maintain the highest density in the city of almost 10 people per
acre. Our civic league sees no valid reason for rezoning this property. We ask you not to
encourage their support, and create an even higher discrepancy in density between the
Bayfront area and other areas in the city by allowing this rezoning. I would just like to
close with mentioning the following organizations that are officially opposed to this
rezoning and the project. The Waters Point Condo Home Owners Association, The
Baylake Pines Civic League, Ocean Park Civic League, Shore Drive Community
Coalition, Cape Story by the Sea Civic League, and Lynnhaven Colony, which voted at
the SDCC meeting to oppose this project. Are there any questions?
Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Kohler? Thank you sir.
Steve Kohler: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Mark Walker.
Mark Walker: Thank you so much. My name is Mark Walker. I handed out a copy of
what I'm about to say. I'm just going to read it word for word. I am going to try to be
quick. There is a lot of stuff. Again, my name is Mark Walker. I'm a registered architect
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 7
and I've been in the industry for over 27 years. I'm a resident of Chesapeake Beach since
1979, and I'm opposed to this proposed project. Although I have great respect for the
Planning Department and Planning Commission, I strongly feel that the 77 -unit
condominium project as proposed in this rezoning request, is not in compliance with the
ULI Bayfront Study, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan.
This rezoning application identifies the proposed project as being within the Primary
Residential Area (Shore Drive Corridor, Site #1) and quotes from the page 89 of the
City's Comprehensive Plan, which was mentioned by Mr. Kohler, stating that land use
plan policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on
"persevering and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of
the surrounding stable neighborhoods." I fail to understand how this project can preserve
and protect the overall character and aesthetic quality of the adjacentA-12 medium
density nor the R-lO low-density neighborhoods. On the contrary, the project proposes
high density, nearly comparable to an A-24 development with unlimited height
restriction, showing a 70-foot tall building. I guess that should be amended to 63 or in
that range as Mr. Bourdon mentioned. This development will be nearly twice the density
of the A-12 property to the west and nearly six times the density of the current zoning and
twice the height of any other structures within the immediate visible area. The
Comprehensive Plan further states, on pages 95 & 96, "The recent history of development
in the (Shore Drive) corridor has been characterized by too high density on too small
parcels of land, and the Shore Drive Overlay District is intended in part, to restore the
property balance." This proposed 77 unit condo project is precisely the type of
development to which this previous statement is referring - too high density on too small
parcels of land." It seems to me how could this be more clear? The major objectives of
the Shore Drive Corridor Plan are stated on page 16 of the plan, "to protect and enhance
the quality of residential communities in the corridor." This objective is further
reinforced on page 8, "new development and redevelopment in the (Shore Drive) area
should be oriented towards protection and enhancement of the character of existing
residential neighborhoods." In the ULI Bayfront Study, on page 33, the study states,
"many of the communities (along Shore Drive) are made up of single-family homes and
should be protected from the intrusion of higher density development." In closing, none
of the three documents I've referenced, the ULI Bayfront Study, the Shore Drive Corridor
Plan nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan support this proposed project and neither do I.
This high density project will not improve the quality of life for citizens along the Shore
Drive corridor, so please don't allow it. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Any questions for Mr. Walker? Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: I got a question.
Mark Walker: Yes sir.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 8
Ronald Ripley: Not withstanding this use, what infrastructure on this road in this vicinity
is lacking? What in your mind should be an infrastructure improvement in this area that
would make it work better?
Mark Walker: Why not leave it as it is?
Ronald Ripley: Leave the road like it is?
Mark Walker: You mean infrastructure in the road itself and not the development we're
trying to replace?
Ronald Ripley: Road. Sidewalks. Crosswalks.
Mark Walker: Got you. I would say infrastructure-wise, sidewalks on both sides. I would
widen the sidewalks from the proposed five feet to about eight feet so that people can
pass with either cycling or walking. I think five feet is too narrow. Crosswalks are
desperately needed in that area. The only place you can cross is at the intersection safely.
If there is influx of people right in that proposed project, how are they going to get across
safely? I mean there is no crosswalk plan. There are no light plans. If you do put a light
in there, you're only going to be about 300 feet from the intersection of Shore Drive and
Pleasure House, which there are so many problems now trying to go from Wawa and
trying to go east on Shore Drive. First, you have to go west. You have to make a u-turn
at Oliver Street to go east. Well, all of these people from Wawa are trying to go east are
trying to adjust position in getting into the left lane to make that left turn into the
eastbound lane. You're going to have another 178 potential cars trying to do the same
thing. Frankly, I think it is a recipe for disaster.
Ronald Ripley: Thank. you.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Walker? Mr. Bernas.
Mark W alker: Yes sir.
Jay Bernas: You had mentioned that you don't like high density of it. What would you
recommend that you leave it as R-lO?
Mark Walker: That is exactly what I recommend. But the whole corridor in there is
exploding to the point where traffic, I guess you've driven Shore Drive lately, but the
traffic is getting impossible. Pedestrians are trying to cross. That is sort of a beach
community, and there are a lot of people on foot through there, and it is very difficult in
the Shore Drive corridor to do anything on foot because it is unsafe. I tried to ride my
bike over there along Shore Drive about a year ago, and was nearly hit myself. I mean it
is very, very tough. I would keep density as it is. I don't see any reason. I mean the
neighborhood there and the houses are nice houses. I'm sure that those who are in favor
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 9
of this project like the idea that the developer is going to be giving them large money for
their houses because he's got that built that into his project. Normally, the house values
wouldn't be selling for as much. I'm sure the developer is offering them, but I don't know
that for a fact, but I would assume that.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Walker? Thank you sir.
Mark Walker: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Todd Solomon.
Barry Knight: Welcome sir.
Todd Solomon: Good afternoon. My name is Todd Solomon. I'm here representing the
Shore Drive Community Coalition Organization of about 25 civic and condo associations
on Shore Drive. I'm also representing Cape Story by the Sea, which is one of the
residential districts along Shore Drive, which Mr. Bourdon forgot to mention in this area.
I did pass out a previous letter that was sent to you as far as the Shore Drive Community
Coalition, the last time this was visited. The Shore Drive Community Coalition, after that
last meetfng, was met by the developer at our general meeting and since then nothing has
changed as far as the Shore Drive Community Coalition's opinion goes on this project.
The reduction in height and some of the other issues haven't changed enough for the
Shore Drive Community Coalition to take a different stance on that issue. My topic of
speech today was height. I thought it was going to be the easiest discussion; however,
I've yet to determine exactly what the height of this project is. We have been told several
different things. You see in the minutes from the January meeting that it could be 45 to
48 feet in height in the back, the high side. It could 35 to 40 in the front. When the
developer came to our meeting he mentioned the highest point would be 70 feet. I'm
hearing today that it is 63 feet, 35 foot on the front. I'm not exactly sure what section this
elevation shows you. Is that the three-story or is that the four-story? That's Wawa
section or not? I'm assuming it's the four-story section with parking underneath. But the
three-story section obviously is going to be at least 12 foot levels. So you're talking at
least 35 to 36 feet if you don't put a roof on it and some other things. So, I'm assuming
that these numbers at some point should be justified. But this project would be the largest
project west ofBayvista, which is next to the Lesner Bridge. That is the pictures that I've
shown to you on that second page there. Everything west of that will be the tallest
project, basically double the size of the surrounding residential and A-12 35-foot projects.
If you could kind of picture that development roughly that size in that area, sticking out
like sore thumb.
Ed Weeden: Mr. Solomon, about 30 seconds.
Todd Solomon: I see that. Thank you. The facility next to Kroger is taller than 35 feet,
however it is kind of buffered by the fact that Northampton Boulevard is at an elevation __
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 10
so it doesn't look quite as tall. That Bayvista project was also recommended by staff and
it did not conclude with the height and bulk of a Conditional Use Permit at one point in
time. I would suggest that this project also fall into that same category. Are there any
questions?
Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Solomon? Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: Todd, do you have more you need to say?
Todd Solomon: I do have a quick deal about the density also to tie into what one of the
other speakers mentioned. This project, as you all hopefully all know- that Bayfront area
is the highest density in all of Virginia Beach at 9 Y2 people per acre; _ The average on this
project would be a density of approximately 50 people per acre. If you put that many
units on there, that is about 2Y2 people per home in that range. So it would be 50 people
per acre. That is one thing that the Shore Drive Community Coalition and the rest of the
civic groups to -- the increase in density. Weare seeing this as a trend sending precedent
not only for height but also for density. We've noticed a lot, and you have already seen
all the requests to change B-2s to B-4s to put multi-family dwellings along Shore Drive.
This is even more so as a change in residential zoning to put in a B-4. Once this project
is approved, if it is approved, it will open the doors also to more B-4 residential or B-2's
abutting residential, which you may see on some of these B-2. They may want to change
that over and get rid of the restaurant and build multi-family, you could acquire some
residential behind it too. I'm sure coming here and requesting rezoning. That is our fear.
That we're not only taking B-2s and changing them to B-4s as an increase in density, but
we're also taking residential and increasing the zoning to increase the density.
Barry Knight: Thanks. Ms. Wood.
Dorothy Wood: Todd, we all agree with what you do. I think you have been down here
since I've been on Planning Commission on various issues, and thank you. What would
you be happy with since a single-family home is probably out?
Todd Solomon: I wouldn't mind seeing, and I know you can do 14, may be 15 if it is, if
you did 7 or 8 duplex townhome type units, which has actually done a lot on the R-5R
throughout our neighborhood. They can knock it down and put two homes on it. If you
did 14 or 15 of those and kept them at 35-foot requirement, a three-story requirement at
35 foot, I think it would fit in nicely. Nobody in the Coalition is opposed to redeveloping
that property. It is just the high density in the large scale and the height of it. I believe
that some of the pine trees there are probably not 70 foot tall either.
Dorothy Wood: Thanks Todd.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Solomon? Thank you.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 11
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Daphne Atkins.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am.
Daphne Atkins: Hi.
Barry Knight: Please state your name please?
Daphne Atkins: My name is Daphne Atkins, and I live in Chesapeake Beach. I'm the
Vice President of the Shore Drive Community Coalition, and I was on the Shore Drive
Safety Task Force. In addition to all of that, I actually work, and I thought taking a half
hour or so today. I wish I had lunch before I came. Anyway, I understand you were
waiting for the Task Force to make a decision about what to do on this property. And you
can see the suggestions we came up with in our report. The Task Force was necessary
because of the increase of fatalities on Shore Drive. It is already a high-risk road. Many
of you might be familiar with the death sign on Shore Drive. It was created in 1977, and
since 1977, there have been 89 deaths on Shore Drive. That averages out to 3.1 per year.
Last year we had six. And five of those were pedestrians. The Task Force came up with
many suggestions. Everything from sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and looking at the
speed limit to having the Planning Department and City officials review the many studies.
All the studies they quoted, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, the ULI Study, the Overlay
District, those need to be looked at in light of density recommendations because density is
what has created the problem on Shore Drive. I know some people think we can have
high density, and we could have a lot of people high density and still make it safe, but
Shore Drive passed that point 10 or 20 years ago. Right now, we are playing catch up on
Shore Drive in trying to get it to be safe from what's there currently. B-4 zoning specially
is what we're trying to avoid on Shore Drive, and that is why we want them to look at that
and to reconsider. It is seems like when the public looks at that, and what we think that
document says and what some times comes out of Planning or developers or other people
think says are two different things. So, this is one reason that we feel like you should
deny this change of zoning. A second reason is the five pedestrian deaths in one year, and
only one of those incidents involved drinking. It had two people involved in it, but I
know we hear a lot about DUI's and everybody is drunk on Shore Drive. Everybody
walking is drunk. Everybody riding a bike is drunk. Everybody driving is drunk. That is
absolutely not true. One incident with the two victims involved alcohol for part of the
people walking across Shore Drive. But like I say, you build five condos around a bar,
buy high-density condos around a bar, somebody is going to walk in and have a drink; so,
the fact that this development would be mid-block, with overflow parking going across
the street according to Mr. Bourdon, this project is an accident waiting to happen. We
don't need these people crossing Shore Drive. Reason number three is traffic flow. I
know Mr. Bourdon said that everybody coming out of here would be turning right and
going down Independence. That is because you can't turn left. We already have a lot of
u-turns on Shore Drive between people trying to get to the Wawa, going east and people
coming out of the Wawa and trying to turn back around and go east. People would be
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 12
coming out of this street and trying to turn around and go back towards the Oceanfront,
because the whole reason why Shore Drive is so popular is not because of what is to the
right going towards Norfolk but because people want to live there because of what is to
the left all the way down to the Oceanfront. So that is the third reason we think you
should deny this. Reason number four is the Task Force recommendations evaluating
access points and this creates another mid-block access point out onto Shore Drive with
all the obvious problems that go on with that. I could continue going through the report.
The problem with density is referenced on page 16. It is an 18-page report, but I don't
think you want me to talk that long. I think these are stand-out reasons. And in
conclusion the developer chose to go to Shore Drive in Virginia Beach to build his condo
instead of Norfolk. Probably one of the reasons he did that was because Norfolk
wouldn't approve it. Because one of the things they keep saying is they don't want to
become another Shore Drive. And this section of Shore Drive is different than what's
farther up towards the Lesner Bridge. This is more of a family, single-family type section
of Shore Drive and some duplexes. So, we would really just like to have it stay that way,
and not scatter the problems we already have.
Barry Knight: Thank you ma' am.
Daphne Atkins: Thank you.
Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Ms. Atkins?
Ronald Ripley: You mentioned access, how else would you access it? Because there is
one access point to this property. You have to have access. So, how would you do it?
Daphne Atkins: We realize you have to have access but what it is zoned for now you
would have 15 houses zoned to access out onto Shore Drive versus 77 condos. That is
just a lot more people.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. You're talking about the number of cars? Okay. I'm sorry.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions?
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Ronda Morrison.
Barry Knight: We1come ma' am.
Ronda Morrison: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Ronda Morrison. I represent Ocean
Park Civic League. I am here today to talk to you about traffic volume in that area. Our
current traffic volume on Shore Drive, according to this report, is 22,516 average daily
trips. With the capacity of 28,200 average daily trips. This will increase that by 505 I
believe, was the exact total daily average trips. It would continue to do this with this
development. In the next month, doing this development, we are very quickly going to
Item #15,16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 13
surpass our 28,200 average daily trips very quickly. Also, of utmost importance is the
vehicular ingress/egress to the property. There would no longer be a median break in
front of North Oliver. People will have to make the left. They will have to make a u-turn
to go east bound on Shore Drive. If someone is coming home from work from Norfolk,
they will have to go down to Pleasure House Road, make the u-turn to come back into
their property. So either way you are traveling you are going to have to make a u-turn on
Shore Drive. We already have an issue at Pleasure House Point where people are having
to make that u-turn if they're coming eastbound on Shore Drive to go into the Wawa. So
that is just going to create a larger problem than what we already have. The traffic back-
ups are already affecting the Fire Department and Rescue Squad that is located down off
Pleasure House Road. This is going to increase the density in that area. They currently
sometimes have to go down the wrong side of the road to get out to Shore Drive. This is
going to make it much worse. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Thank you ma'am. Are there any questions for Ms. Morrison? Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Brian Camden.
Barry Knight: We1come sir.
Brian Camden: Good afternoon. My name is Brian Camden. I'm a 25 year resident of
Chesapeake Beach. I'm also a civil engineer and a developer of almost 200 condos under
construction currently. The civic league asked me to take a look at this property and to
comment as a development. One thing that did jump up, and I heard earlier, they said
there was no City water or sewer to this. I noticed here in staff s review of this that there
is six-inch water main running into and down Oliver Drive. There is an existing eight-
inch sanitary sewer and a 24-inch HRSD force main on Shore Drive. I don't know if it is
existing or not, but apparently staff thinks it is.
Faith Christie: They're at the intersection.
Brian Camden: The project itself, and here again as a developer, I kind of disagree with
some of my neighbors on this. I think the project should be developed. In its current
zoning right now, you could put 15 custom homes in there. Fifteen custom homes right
now would probably generate a profit of right around $1,530,000.00. At 77 units, and
condos is what they want to change to, you could probably generate a profit of right
around $5,544,000.00. As a developer, we're all out obviously to make as much money
as we can on this. But the fact of the matter is that this property -- I don't know if you've
been down there -- but this thing is full of beautiful sea oaks, a lot of pine trees, and stuff
like that. The development that they currently got planned is a "strip mine" type of
development, where they're going to bulldoze all these old trees and come in there and
put in a big box type structure. If you develop it and kept it at its current zoning, and just
put in 15 nice custom homes, you will be able to make a million or a million and a half in
profit, and you would be able to keep a good deal of the existing trees that are out there.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 14
And finally, just let me say that this is a cul-de-sac that you're building. You're putting in
77 units in to a cul-de-sac. Nowhere in the city are you allowed to do that right now.
That's it.
Barry Knight: Mr. Camden thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you sir.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Leslie Cornwell.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma' am.
Leslie Cornwell: Hi. Good afternoon. I am Leslie Cornwell, and I'ni representing the
Bay1ake'Pines Civic League. On January 23,2006, our members voted to oppose this
project on Ocean Properties and the rezoning from R-lO to B-4. The speakers before me
have done a wonderful job explaining in detail the reasons why you should deny this
development and the zoning change. Simply put, the Bayfront area is in trouble. High
density and the types of construction that have been allowed to be built has had a
devastating impact on the culture and the character that we once had. Our roads are
becoming overwhelmed and we continue to compete for funding of the Shore Drive
improvement projects. Our residents are being killed, because they lack the basic
pedestrian safety infrastructure such as sidewalks, bike trails, and pedestrian crosswalks.
Again, we are fighting to fund the recommendations of the Shore Drive Safety Task
Force. Recommendations for public safety, because we can no longer wait for the
improvement projects that are years away from ever being constructed, for our need for
more police, fire, and EMS staffing. Our open space has been consumed by development,
and in 2000, the Outdoors Plan stated that we needed 82 acres to adequately serve our
existence, 82 more acres. Here we are six years later with even a greater population, and
currently high-density developments are planned for the last few years of open space. No
wonder the City of Norfolk is using the Bayfront as an example of what not to do. We all
hold responsibility in what has happened to our community. The resident that can't resist
an enormous offer for their property. The builder that focuses to much on profit and not
enough on building a project that would enhance and blend with the surrounding
community. And most of all the City. City Planning and this Board continually deviate
from the consistent frame of the ULI and the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Overlay,
which were meant to preserve and protect the single-family homes and neighborhoods.
We can no longer continue on this course. We need a vision that incorporates all of these
studies and plans along with developers, and most of all, the residents, to come up with a
redevelopment strategy that would retain what is left of the unique character of our
community, and allow us to leave a legacy that we can all be proud of. A plan that
includes more than guidelines, but is a power to ensure this vision is followed. We do not
oppose redevelopment, but we must demand reasonable development that does not
overpower a community, but blends and enhances. Until the Bayfront finally receives the
funding for our overwhelmed infrastructure, and Phases I through IV are completed, we
can no longer tolerate or even consider this type of high density development. We ask
this Board to work with the City Planning Department and Council to reevaluate the
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 15
Shore Drive Corridor Plan and the Overlay. We are in desperate need for a plan that will
finally protect and preserve our single-family neighborhoods. When you look at the
whole picture and not just one single development, you finally can comprehend what is
happening to Bayfront area. You have to understand that this development and this
rezoning cannot be approved. The only other quick statement that I wanted to make is
that it is kind of misconceiving when they make the comment that "Baylake Pines is the
only the single-family on Shore Drive. "There are single families across the street, on
Pleasure House Road. You have Chick's Beach. You have Bayville Park before you even
get to Baylake Pines. Yes, I realize we are maybe the only ones that literally have a home
on Shore Drive, there are a lot of single-family homes in this area and the impact is really,
as you can see, not been good and very negative. We need to stop and look at what we
have been doing.
Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Cornwell. Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am.
Leslie Cornwell: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Robert Costello.
Barry KnIght: Welcome sir.
Robert Costello: Hi. I'm Robert Costello. I live on Bradpointe Lane off of Pleasure
House Road. Commissioner Wood quoted earlier from the Virginian-Pilot article that
stated that "residents have a good reason to be wary of developers and their project." It is
unfortunate when a City Council and a Planning Commission places the City's residents
in such a position that the residents are given a good reason to be wary of builders and
their projects. Residents in Chesapeake Beach area and all along Shore Drive are
painfully aware of the uncontrolled increase in density along Shore Drive and the absolute
lack of added infrastructure in the face of that increased density. The lack of
infrastructure and the uncontrolled rise in density have created an expediential increase in
the safety hazards to the residences along the Shore Drive corridor. In the 19 years that
I've owned my house in Chesapeake Beach, I have not seen any improvements on the
infrastructure. I appreciate that the Shore Drive Safety Task Force and the Shore Drive
Advisory Committee have made recommendations to improve the infrastructure along
Shore Drive, but only when the changes to infrastructure are actually approved by
Council and funded, then it will be seen that the City is doing something to improve the
safety along Shore Drive. Until such a time, approving large-scale developments, which
cause the multi-fold increase of population density, will give the appearance that the City
is more interested in increasing the tax revenue base then they are in the safety of
residents. Mr. Bourdon is fine at pointing out precedents that are established when the
Commission and the City Council approve certain building projects. This project will be
the first of its kind not just in Chesapeake Beach, but the first on Shore Drive, west of
Albemarle. This will be a bad precedent. The City had a good reason when they
originally designated this area as R-lO Residential. Don't second guess those City
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 16
administrators who did so. Leave it zoned the way it is as R-lO. Do not change the
zoning to B-4. In his testimony in front of the Commission, Mr. Bourdon has stated that
this project will provide economic revitalization to the area. That is a joke. This is not an
area suffering from blight. Every available space in the Bayside Shopping Center across
the street from this proposed project is leased. There are no empty commercial properties
where they're looking for business. This is not a proposal that will alleviate blight. This
is a redevelopment out of greed to maximize the amount of properties that can be stacked
on top of any given area property. I request again that you oppose this proposal. Thank
you.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Costello. Are there any questions? Thank you sir.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Patricia Costello.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma' am.
Patricia Costello: Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is Patricia Costello. You have
listened to people who are very educated and have been in the business and they're the
best representatives of the residents of Chesapeake Beach that we could ask for and come
and plead- our case in front of you. I'm very proud of them. I'm in here because I'm the
emotional type, and I want to represent to you the hundreds of residents of Chesapeake
Beach that feel as strongly as I do that this is not the right use for this property. It is
actually a very good pleasant-looking building. It deserves to have some space around it,
so that the people who live there have room to breathe. They won't have room to breathe
if it is built right here on Shore Drive. I drive down that street every single day and
sometimes multiple times a day, so I can attest to that. I hope that you will listen to
people who have communicated with you, because each person who actually writes to
you or sends you an emai1, is representing dozens, if not hundreds of people in our
neighborhood who have signed petitions and who feel as passionately about this as I am
speaking right now. I know that you have to make business decisions. And think about
the tax revenue that you will collect from these propertie. But we firinly believe that
leaving it as R-lO and putting in excellent quality single-family homes will bring in the
property balance between what the community can sustain and what the City can receive
as tax revenue. So I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Joseph Strange: Those are all the speakers.
Barry Knight: Thank you ma'am. Okay. Mr. Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Knight. First of all, I do appreciate the comments of all
the speakers who have spoken. I certainly don't intend to evolve into name calling and
characterization. But I will say a couple of things regarding what is patently obvious, and
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 17
that is the land use pattern along Shore Drive in this section of Shore Drive is not single-
family residential land use on Shore Drive. Clearly, the only, because there is no single-
family zoned property on this section of Shore Drive across the street on South Oliver, as
I think it was insinuated is zoned. Both sides of South Oliver on Shore Drive is zoned B-
2 commercial. Mr. Solomon is correct. I didn't talk about Cape Story by the Sea, which
is east of Great Neck Road and is five miles from this property, and all of that property in
that section of Shore Drive is single-family and that is exactly what the ULI Study was
talking about. That section of Shore Drive, as well as Baylake Pines in the section of
Shore Drive, are the only sections not already completely commercial and multi-family
residential development. This is the only piece of property in this section of Shore Drive
from Independence Boulevard on the west, and actually west of Independence Boulevard,
all the way to Baylake Pines. Everything on both sides of Shore Drive is all commercial
or multi-family residential. There is no single-family zoning or single-family land use.
And that is a fact. There is a break behind this property. You got Wawa. You got the
break of the Lake Bradford watershed. You got the multi-family and you got multi-
family to our west. So, the ULI Study - it is disingenuous for Mark Walker or anyone
else to suggest -- that study was saying that this little enclave the only single-families, is
an island that everyone forgot, that it is intended to say we need to preserve that single-
family. I'm sorry if any of you have been on that street, and can look at those 60 year old
houses that do not have water and sewer. Water and sewer does not extend down or up
North Oliver Drive. I'm sorry. That part is absolutely disingenuous. I absolutely do
agree, and we do agree that infrastructure is needed in that area, but redevelopment
doesn't happen the way the gentleman spoke of. His numbers don't make sense. Judy
Freitas, who is a commercial realtor has asked that she be permitted to speak. I've
explained to her that I don't know if you could allow someone to speak in rebuttal that
did not speak initially. But, the City of Norfolk would love to have this project. It is a
beautiful project. I'm also glad that Todd indicated correctly that the four-story building
senior housing facility next to Kroger is right down the street and is viewable from this
piece of property. It is similar in height. In fact, it is higher overall than this because it is
that height entirely, but this just has one small section that is more than 35 to 45 feet. I'll
be happy to answer your questions. Three minutes is not very long.! don't know
whether or not you will allow Ms. Freitas to speak or not.
Judy Freitas: I have some information.
Barry Knight: Did she sign in?
Joseph Strange: She signed in. I called her name and she didn't want to speak.
Barry Knight: What is the information? Does anyone want to sponsor her?e
Kathy Katsias: I'll sponsor her.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma' am. Please identify yourself.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 18
Judy Freitas: Thank you very much. My name is Judy Freitas. I am a residential
commercial, 22 years in real estate, and I'm a broker for Long and Foster. I also want you
to know that I am a registered nurse. I also want you to know that I ran rescue for a year
and a half at Station 14 at the Oceanfront. I'm about people. I'm all about health. I need
to express, sitting there, and it was just jumping out of me. I appreciate the engineer, the
developer and what they're saying. If you drive by this community, it is isolated. These
are nine parcels completely surrounded by multi-family, commercial, and shopping
centers. They're 60-year old properties. The only four that have City water and City
sewage are the front ones facing Shore Drive. Two and half years ago, I know for a fact
that Edie Hughes and her husband tried desperately to get City water and City sewage to
go through the back. She is all the way to the back on Lake Bradford. 'People don't even
know it exists back there because from that front of Shore Drive, when you drive by
there, it is a site not for pleasant viewing. And from my 22 years of experience, I can tell
you that this is not about money. You could rip down these 60 year old buildings, and
you could attempt to put up single-family homes, and I couldn't tell you one person that
would want to purchase a single-family residence among multi-family commercial and
four lanes. This developer is going in there proposing sidewalks. He is proposing to
maintain the beauty of Lake Bradford. It will be more accessible. This does not cut off in
any way Chick's Beach. It doesn't affect Chick's Beach. It didn't in the beginning. It is
far enough west on Shore Drive. The military base is basically the next gate up from after
the multi-family. Ijust got a little confused sitting there. Some ofthe subdivisions that
came up are not even remotely close to what we're referencing here. That is why I
needed for you to understand I'm not coming here as a broker. I love people. I wouldn't
have been a registered nurse. I would not have done rescue and devoted a lot of other
things, and I don't want to get all into that. That is all that I wanted to say. I do
appreciate you listening to me. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Ms. Wood has a question.
Dorothy Wood: Do you live there ma'am?
Judy Freitas: I live in Little Neck in Virginia Beach and a 22-year resident.
Dorothy Wood: What is your connection with this property?
Judy Freitas: I am the broker of Long and Foster representing the sellers and I've walked
the property. I bought the parcel. I said that when I came up. I didn't try to hide my
identity in any way, shape or form.
Dorothy Wood: I didn't say that.
Judy Freitas: I apologize. But I didn't want to hide my identity. I wasn't here for any
other purpose. That is why I chose not to speak. But when I started hearing some of the
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 19
things that were mentioned.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Ms. Katsias.
Kathy Katsias: Has the developer considered -- and I think one of the recommendations
was the lower density and making it duplex versus multi-family -- have they considered
making it 17 duplexes?
Judy Freitas: All that I am aware of, because I know Eddie Bourdon would have to
address this, but I know he has brought down the noise decibel level according to the City
Council and the second go around on his aesthetics only with shrubbeiy and bushes and
trees and his preservation of Lake Bradford and keeping that natural environment as to
the beauty as it should be.
Kathy Katsias: That wasn't my question. I was lowering the density.
Judy Freitas: The density. He did as requested, but I don't know if its gotten any lower
than that.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you ma'am. Are there any
questions for Me. Bourdon? Okay. Ms. Katsias. Mr. Bourdon.
Kathy Katsias: My question to you is has the developer entertained the duplex?
Eddie Bourdon: Ms. Katsias. Most of you certainly recognize the cost of redeveloping a
site like this with the demolition costs and the asbestos removal cost in these older
homes. It is really prohibitive. The idea that was put forth that someone could make a
million and half dollars by redeveloping this property into some number of single-family
homes. I've represented, as you all know, represented a lot of developers. Our firm does
well. I don't want to insult anybody. It is absolutely not feasible. It would not be able to
done. 1'11 simply say it that way. The numbers are numbers that will make this doable.
You get down in that situation. It isn't doable.
Barry Knight: Ms. Wood.
Dorothy Wood: Eddie, obviously you have a few people in opposition today. Did you
know that? What could you see here that you could do perhaps with this property? It is a
beautiful design. Could it be smaller? What could you do? I'm just asking a question.
Eddie Bourdon: No. Ms. Wood, I certainly understand and appreciate that. I absolutely
can assure you that your question has been asked of the developer and his architect long
before today. Okay. The opposition does not come as a surprise to them nor to me. And,
they have looked at every way to make this work, and make it feasible. The reality is if
this project is not one that is approvable, they can't make the numbers work, and they will
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 20
not be able to do anything. Again, this didn't come as a surprise. Some of the comments
maybe, but overall it isn't doable. It isn't feasible. This will more than likely, if this
project or something of the same sort is not approved, and I would just point out that last
summer in the heart of Ocean Park, the Colley Marine site zoned B-2 was rezoned B-4
for a similar high quality residential development without any opposition. It has been not
even a year; so this developer is looking at this as a far better location than that, from a
traffic standpoint and everything else. We believe this is consistent with the Shore Drive,
ULI, and Corridor Study, which we all withdrew and which we approved that rezoning.
Council approved the Colley Marine rezoning, and it wasn't even controversial. And this
is less density than that was in terms of the per acre number of units now that we have
reduced it. So, there are some inconsistencies here on part of the opposition. I do
understand, and I can sympathize with, the fact that there is a perception, not an
inaccurate one, that infrastructure improvements, sidewalks, bike paths, and pedestrian
connection need to happen on Shore Drive. They absolutely have to. I was at the Council
meeting last night, and the City actually got an award last night as the sixth best most
walkable city in the country. I sat there and said, there is some merit to that, but I can tell
you that there is a tremendous place that we can get number one, and that is what we need
to do on Shore Drive plus when the Transition Area gets there with all those trails. Ten
years from now, hoping sooner on Shore Drive, we'll be number one in that walkability
thing, I can tell you that. The entire area of Shore Drive needs walkability. There is no
disagreement about that whatsoever.
Dorothy Wood: I don't mean to ask you the same question in a different way, but...
Eddie Bourdon: That's okay.
Dorothy Wood: What about the back buildings? The ones that people seem to have a
problem with them being so high? Is there anything to bring them down?
Eddie Bourdon: That would necessitate eliminating the under the building parking. Part
of the attractiveness and appearance is that you don't have a sea of parking.
Dorothy Wood: I know. I'm just trying to see what we can do.
Eddie Bourdon: What you will see from Shore Drive is 35 feet. It's back behind it. Back
behind the wall there would be portions that would be a little bit taller. A four-story
senior housing facility next to the grocery store is actually a much larger building overall.
Todd.'s point is not without merit that on the Northampton side, because of the on-ramp
being elevated, it does, from that side, not have the same height appearance. But from the
Shore Drive side, it does.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Bourdon?
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all very much.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 21
Barry Knight: Okay Commissioners. I'll open it for discussion among us. Who would
like to start? Mr. Crabtree.
Eugene Crabtree: I think were beating this thing around. This is the second time around.
I heard the same thing today that I heard back in January. I haven't heard anything
different, except for the fact that the developer has redesigned his units. They seem to be
conforming with the safety study as much as can be done, as far as what they're building
and what they're putting in. The thing we heard, that we started off with, was wait until
the Shore Drive Safety Council met. They've met. They've given their report. I don't see
as to where it is really affected us this much. If anything, I think the developer has
improved it to some extent. So, the purpose of the deferral has been met from my
standpoint of view. So consequently, I see moving if forward. I'm going to support the
application. Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Henley.
Al Henley: I'm very familiar with the Chesapeake Beach area, and in particular Chick's
Beach. As a matter of fact, I remember finally visiting my great aunt who lived behind
Frankies on Lookout Road for many years. Those times have changed a great deal.
Virginia Beach has changed a great deal. Who would visualize we would have 400,000
people living in our midst. Shore Drive is obviously one area that is of great concern and
safety. I would say, Mr. Bourdon, that I think your client should be applauded by trying
to work wi~h the community by lowering it with less units and also, on the traffic study,
by eliminating the cut-through median and a left lane. I think that was absolutely a
hazard. But, I guess what I'm summing up to, is that I will not be able to support this
today primarily because of the density on the small piece of property. I can sympathize
with both parties in opposition as well as in favor of this. If I lived there, I would want
better conditions as well. But also, I am concerned with the residents that came in today
in opposition to speak against this. They had some excellent points in here, and if I lived
in that area, I would probably feel the same way. I do not. I live across the other end of
town. But it is a beautiful complex. If it was on a different parcel of property, I think it
would be absolutely gorgeous. It is a beachy unit, and it serves well because it's in the
City of Virginia Beach. But, if you pack people in, I have a problem with that. And just
to make a profit on it, and profit is not everything, and I realize because of the cost of
construction, demolition, as Mr. Bourdon said and asbestos removal, you're talking about
a lot of federal and state regulations that must be met, and they're extremely expensive. I
feel very confident that (if the current developer is not interested in his property) there are
going to be other opportunities for this property to be developed, and in a much better
manner than what we are seeing here today. So based on that, without debating this any
more, I will not be able to support this application. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Are there any other comments or discussion? Ms.
Anderson.
Janice Anderson: I'm glad that we deferred it. I thought the project is in my opinion, a
better product because they have reduced the units and they addressed the traffic issue. I
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 22
understand what the neighbors concerns are and that Shore Drive is crowded, but so far as
this developer and this site, I do believe this site is appropriate for multi-family use. R-lO
just doesn't fit anymore. It has been isolated, and I can't believe they got all nine people
to join together to sell the property. That doesn't happen again. I don't think it would
flourish with single-family homes there. It has been eaten up. I think this is appropriate
to do the multi-family. It is dense. They lowered it down, but I don't think it is too
dense. I like it because of the quality. You might get less dense but not the high quality.
They come hand in hand. You're going to have to have a little density to have the high
quality that I think what we're looking for. But I think it is appropriate size. It does add
some benefits. The maintaining of Lake Bradford that everybody has talked about and
the sidewalks that connect to the Wawa. I believe the applicant has done what we have
asked them. I would be in support.
Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Anderson. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: When we started on the Shore Drive plan back about nine years ago, I
guess, we started with nothing, and I probably mentioned this before, with no funding at
all. Nothing. We started with an idea of how to improve the corridor. The reason you've
heard here are the reasons. The infrastructure is not there. That is a huge problem. There
is movement on infrastructure. We do have the Shore Drive Plan. We have developed
guidelines. This particular applicant has tried to meet those guidelines. A product of the
plan is to say that if you're going to build in this corridor, we want it to have a look that
fits in the corridor. That is part of the solution in some people's mind. We had a meeting
the other day with Bob Scott, myself, Clay and we talked about this, and Kathy, about the
frustration that we have as people who serve on the Committee, and I know the
community has. And we're just extremely frustrated from the standpoint that we are not
able to shake loose funding to complete the infrastructure that needs to happen down
there. The Safety Task Force came back with about 30 million dollars, which would
include all phasing of construction. There are four phasings, and the design of the last
phase, which, when you put all the safety issues in place, put all the infrastructure in
there, sO that the gentleman that got up and mentioned that he would like to ride his bike
up on the road and he can't, that is a problem. The combination that the Committee
envisioned, when it was started, was that by having a plan in place, as developments
come along they would pay for part of the infrastructure because we had no money. That
was part of the process. And as we talked the other day, Bob, Kathy, Clay, and myself,
the development community has done that. The City is the one who has not done it.
We've got a meeting next Tuesday, I think it is, where we're going to present kind of a
"State of the Bayfront Area" to Council, and those points are going to be made very
strongly. I can assure you, because what were asking from Council, and I understand that
they agreed to fund a million of dollars for safety issues, but were going to ask for the
balance of the funding over the next six years. I think there is a possibility of getting it.
So, that's real, real important. You heard the same issues from several speakers that
infrastructure is critical. You got to feel safe. You got to be able to move through this
corridor. This plan will pay for part of that. That is small consolation I'm sure, but they
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 23
definitely will be doing that. I keep looking at the patterns too. I have a hard time seeing
single-family in here. I think either it's a commercial use or it's a multi-family use. To
be single-family, it doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it would make sense as a
townhouse. I don't know, as Todd Solomon suggested. But I don't know the economics.
On the Planning Commission, we don't get into that. We don't ask what you're paying.
We're looking at land use patterns. I think Jan said it in a real good way, and that is, it
just kind of says this is what it ought to be. I think you do have a good plan. With this
particular plan, I think by going back and reducing the size of the number of units and
changing the safety issues, I'm going to support it also.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Ripley. Is there any other discussion? .
Eugene Crabtree: I'll make a motion that we approve the application as presented.
Barry Knight: Mr. Strange seconds it. Is there any other discussion? We have a motion
on the floor for agenda Item #15 with five proffers, Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Agenda
Item #16, seven conditions and agenda Item #17 with six conditions. A motion made by
Gene Crabtree and seconded by Joe Strange. I'll call for the question.
AYE 9
ANDERSON AYE
BERNAS
CRABTREE AYE
HENLEY
LIVAS AYE
KA TSIAS AYE
KNIGHT AYE
RIPLEY AYE
STRANGE AYE
WALLER AYE
WOOD AYE
NAY 2
ABSO
ABSENT 0
NAY
AYE
Ed Weeden: Bya vote of 9-2, the application of Ocean Properties, L.L.c. has been
approved.
Barry Knight: If there is no other business before this body, we will stand adjourned.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND
DISCONTINUING THAT CERTAIN STREET KNOWN
AS NORTH OLIVER DRIVE SHOWN ON THAT
CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "EXHIBIT \ A'
SHOWING STREET CLOSURE OF N. OLIVER
DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY (MB 21, PG 5) JUNE
10, 2005 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA"
8
WHEREAS, Ocean Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited
9 liability company, applied to the Council of the City of
10 Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described
11 street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and
12
WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said
13 street be discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain
14 condition~ having been met on or before one (1) year from City
15 Council's adoption of this Ordinance;
16
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the
17 City of Virginia Beach, Virginia:
18 SECTION I
19 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued,
20 closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on
21 or before one (1) year from Ci ty Council's adoption of this
22, ordinance:
23
24 GPIN' S: 1479-37-6912, 1479-37-5863, 1479-37-5753, 1479-37-5680,
25 1479-37-7850, 1479-37-7750 AND 1479-37-7611
1
26 All that certain piece or parcel of land
27 situate, lying and being in the City of
28 Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and
29 described as "N. OLIVER DRIVE (30' R/W)"
30 shown as the hatched area on that certain
31 plat entitled: "EXHIBIT 'A' SHOWING STREET
32 CLOSURE OF N. OLIVER DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY (ME
33 21, PG 5) JUNE 10, 2005 VIRGINIA BEACH,
34 VIRGINIA" Scale: 1"= 50', dated June 10,
35 2005, prepared by MSA, P.C., a copy of which
36 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
37 SECTION II
38 The following conditions must be met on or before one
39 (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance:
40
1.
The City Attorney's Office will make the final
41
determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee.
The
42 purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined
43 according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest
44 In Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City
45
Council.
Copies of said policy are available in the Planning
46 Departmen t .
47
2.
The applicant shall resubdivide the property
48 and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area
49 into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be
2
50 submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street
51 closure approval.
52
3.
The applicant shall provide an easement to the
53 City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works for the
54
continued maintenance of Lake Bradford.
The actual size and
55 location of the easement shall be determined by the Department
56 of Public Works.
57
4.
The
applicant
shall
verify
that
no
public
58 utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure.
59 If public utilities do exist, easements or relocation of the
60 utility satisfactory to the City of Virginia Beach Departments
61 of Public Works or Public Utili ties shall be provided prior to
62 final plat approval.
63
5.
The applicant shall verify that no private
64 utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure.
65 Preliminary conrrnents from the utility companies indicate that
66 there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed
67
for closure.
If private utilities do exist, the applicant shall
68 provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies.
69
6 .
Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent
70 upon compliance with the above stated conditions within one (1)
71
year of approval by City Council.
If all conditions noted above
72 are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within
3
73 one (1) year of the City Council vote to close the street, this
74 approval will be considered null and void.
75 SECTION III
76
1.
If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on
77 or before June 12, 2007, this Ordinance will be deemed null and
78 void without further action by the City Council.
79
2.
If all condi tions are met on or before June 12,
80 2007, the date of final closure is the date the street closure
81 ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney.
82
3.
In the event the Ci ty of Virginia Beach has any
83 interest in the underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee
-
84 is authorized to execute whatever documents, if any, that may be
85 requested to convey such interest, provided said documents are
86 approved by the City Attorney's Office.
87 SECTION IV
88
A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed In
89 the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia
90 Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF VIRGINIA
91 BEACH as "Grantor" and OCEAN PROPERTIES, LLC as "Grantee."
92 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach,
93
Virginia, on this
day of
, 2006.
THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF
ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED TO COUNCIL.
4
CA-9710
:\::\OlD\REAL ESTATE\Strcct Ch)Slln:\Ol:C:ln PJ't)pcrtics CA971()\ORD.d{\L'
R-l
May 25, 2006
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~ '--'7- 0'
Plann~ng Department
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
~~ UJ~~)
Clty Attorney
5
EXHIBIT "A"
556'.34'26"E
29.77'
N7S'02'41"E I
32. 73\. ~
~./" .
581'58' 5E~'.L-/
--70.?i'
N/F -;
STEVE &- EOITH M HUGHES g
/479-37-6912 .-
(iNST ;/200407210112456)
(M8 21, PG 5)
-----
-------
N/F
ALAN 0 COROREY &-
SHERI L HOWARD
/479-37-5863
(083794, PG /159)
(MB 21, PG 5)
---
------~
---
N/F
PENELOPE H SMITH RLT
1479-37-5753
(iNST ;/200308050120507)
(MB 21, PG 5)
--
-----
N/F
ANN ARGOOALE
1479-37-5680
(DB 4349. PG 802)
(MB 21, PC 5)
PIN(r)
P7JDENOTES A PORTION OF
k:::.LJ N. OLIVER DRIVE
HEREBY CLOSED.
AREA = 12,322 SF
OR 0.283 AC
.
JOB #05052
ZONED: R10
L,4kt e
s 6 . 'RA.Dt:Of?
87.~q9'42" D
(O/Af
49.~
"
"'~s.
~ '5<"$).
C!o :26'..
'-t. f'
N/F
TEVEN R &- EDITH M HUGHES
1479-37-7850
(DB 4662, PC 1522)
(Al821, PG 5)
--
--
..:::
:I:~~
~(j)0
Z:-\z
~y
(j)<1
~~
~rn
:I:
""0
1(3\
~~
rnrn
~()
o
bO
~~
t!>z.
0) .
~~
~rn
~
N/F
PENELOPE H SMITH ET AL
1479-37-7750
(DB 2743, PC 1508)
(Al821, PC 5)
N/F
KAREN S ROULLET
1479-37-7611
(083665, PC 1096)
(Al8 21, PC 5)
-
DATE: 6/10/2005 SCALE: 1"=50'
OWN BY: OSM
582'03'4-3"E 011-\ R/W)
SHORE DRIVE (VARIABLE WI
EXHIBIT 'A' SHOWING
STREET CLOSURE
OF
N. OUVER DRIVE
RIGHT-Of-WAY
(MB 21, PG 5)
JUNE 10, 2005
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA
MSA, P.C.
Landscape Architecture. Planning
Surveying. Engineering
Environmental Sciences
50JJ ROUSE DRIVE, VIRGL'lIA BEACH, VA 23462-3708
PHONE (757) 490-9264 . FAX (757) 490-0634
.
~
"-
C:':
"
LO
'-'
o
<
o
C:':
w
(/)
:::>
o
:c
w
C:':
:::>
(/)
<
W
-'
Cl.
Map B-3
Mo Not to Scole
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM: Ocean Properties, L.L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification,
Conditional Use Permit
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2006
.
Background:
<:
a) Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. for a Chanae of Zonina District
Classification from R-10 (SO) Residential District to Conditional 8-4 (SO) Mixed
Use District on property located at 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and
2209,2213,2217,2216,2208 North Oliver Road (GPINs 1479374693;
1479377611; 1479375680; 1479377588; 1479375753; 1479375863;
1479376912; 1479377850; 1479377750). The Comprehensive Plan designates
this site as being within the Primary Residential Area - Shore Drive Corridor.
The purpose of this rezoning is to develop multi-family dwellings. DISTRICT 4 -
BAYSIDE
b) Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for multi-
family dwellings on property located at 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and
2209,2213,2217,2216,2208 North Oliver Road (GPINs 14793746930000;
1479377611; 1479375680; 1479377588; 1479375753; 1479375863;
1479376912; 1479377850; 1479377750). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE
. Considerations:
The applicant proposes to close North Oliver Drive, rezone the existing R-10
(SO) residential properties and the closed North Oliver Drive to Conditional B-4
(SO) Mixed Use District and obtain a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family
dwellings at a density of 21 units per acre.
The applicant assembled all of the properties fronting North Oliver Drive, north of
Shore Drive, and proposes to consolidate them into one site to be developed as
a multi-family project. The submitted conceptual site and landscape plan depicts
a 3 to 4 story building with 77 multi-family units centered on the site. Parking is
located on the sides of the structure. The proposed building is three stories in
height along Shore Drive and on the western side of the site. The building
graduates to four-stories in height along the eastern and northern portions of the
site. Parking is also located under the four-story sections of the building. Open
space varying in width from 55-feet to 115-feet is provided in the rear of the site
adjacent to Lake Bradford. The proposed storm water management facility is also
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 2 of 3
located in this area. Fifteen-foot landscape buffers are shown along the site
frontage and along the western property line.
The proposed density is within the guidelines of the City Zoning Ordinance for
this size parcel in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District. The regulations of
this overlay district, which were adopted in 1998 based on recommendations of
the 1997 ULI Study of the area, allocates density according to the size of the
parcel. The subject parcel's size allows a density of 24 units per acre. The
applicant's proposal is at 21 units per acre.
The proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan for the Shore Drive Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan's recommendations
for this corridor call for the protection of the existing stable residential
neighborhoods from incompatible development, and call for any development
that does occur, whether residential or non-residential, to be consistent with the
vision established for the corridor. The applicant's proposal is rare in this corridor
in that the applicant has been able to accumulate nine parcels of land for
consolidation and development in accordance with the Shore Drive Corridor
Overlay District and Design Guidelines. The proposed multi-family residential use
and density are compatible with the adjacent multi-family and commercial
development, and is less than the permitted density for a parcel of this size within
the Shore Drive Corridor district.
The development site is located on Shore Drive itself, within what is a
commercial and multi-family residential corridor. It replaces a group of single-
family homes that while at one time were appropriate at this location, are now
stressed and under pressure by the market to redevelop to a use that is either
more dense or more intense. The site is well buffered from the neighborhood to
the north by an arm of Lake Bradford. This proposal, therefore, is appropriate in
regard to land use, since the use is in keeping with well-accepted land use .
standards by its location on a major arterial highway, buffered from the adjacent
neighborhood by a natural environmental feature. If this use was located further
north, within the neighborhood, it would likely not be in keeping with accepted
land use standards, as it would represent an incompatible intrusion into a stable
neighborhood. It is that intrusion that the ULI panel, the Shore Drive Corridor
Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan discourage. Staff concludes, however, that
this proposal is not an incompatible intrusion into a stable residential
neighborhood; it is instead the redevelopment of a stressed and now
inappropriately located group of single-family homes to a use that is more
appropriate for a location immediately adjacent to Shore Drive.
There was opposition to the requests.
. Recommendations:
The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-2 to approve
the requests as proffered and with the following conditions:
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 3 of 3
1. The applicant shall install a five-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of
Shore Drive and tie it into the existing sidewalk located to the east of the site.
The applicant shall also provide landscaping in accordance with the Shore
Drive Phase II Demonstration project within the right-of-way along the entire
frontage of Shore Drive.
2. The applicant shall provide a sidewalk from the building to the required five-
foot sidewalk at Shore Drive. The proposed sidewalk shall be constructed of
either pavers or stamped concrete.
3. Fifty percent (50%) of the building exterior shall be constructed with hardi-
plank siding. Synthetic cedar shake siding, beaded vinyl and brick shall be
used as accents and for architectural relief. All decks, handrails and columns
shall be wrapped with vinyl. Doors and windows shall be vinyl clad wood,
vinyl or aluminum. Roofing materials shall be standing seam metal, shake
shingles, or architectural grade shingles. Building and roof colors shall be
neutral or earth tones.
4. The proposed berm along Shore Drive shall be 3 to 4 feet in height and shall
meander and undulate along the frontage. Plants listed in the Shore Drive
Corridor Plan Appendices, Landscaping Guidelines, shall be used on the site.
5. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan for review and approval by City
statt. All lighting on the site should be consistent with those standards
recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society.
6. The applicant shall maintain a 3D-foot butter adjacent to Lake Bradford. The
butter area shall be left in its' natural state and shall not be disturbed.
7. The applicant shall eliminate the straight /Ieft turn lane from the plans and
shall close the median break on Shore Drive opposite the existing location of
N. Oliver Drive. The applicant shall consult with Public Works Capital
Improvement Program division and Traffic Engineering division regarding the
method and materials to be used in closing the median.
. Attachments:
Staff Review
Disclosure Statement
Planning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~
CftyManager: ~j k. ~6)It
Staff Planner: Faith Christie
OCEAN
PROPERTIES,
L.L.C.
Agenda Items
15,16, & 17
May 10, 2006 Public Hearing
REQUEST:
15) Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 (SD) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SO)
Mixed Use District.
16) Conditional Use Permit for Multi-family dwellings
17) Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north
side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford.
ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 4856, 4840, 4848, and 4832 Shore Drive, and 2209, 2213,
2217,2216, and 2208 North Oliver Drive
GPIN:
14793746930000;
14793776110000;
14793756800000;
14793775880000;
14793757530000;
14793758630000;
14793769120000;
14793778500000;
14793777500000.
COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT:
4 - BA YSIDE
SITE SIZE:
3.58 acres
APPLICATION HISTORY:
On January 11, 2006, the Planning Commission deferred these requests so the applicant could meet
with the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and to allow residents of the area adequate time to consider
the proposal. Concerns regarding the proposed density, school population, traffic and pedestrian
safety were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.
OCEAN PRE)~ERTIES~LC
Agenda Itern~15,t6':~i17.
.........:~~g~J
On January 19, 2006, the applicant appeared before the Shore Drive Advisory Committee (SDAC). The
applicant presented plans with a reduced density of 80 units and a reduced height. The SDAC was
pleased with the changes, but offered the following suggestion for additional modifications:
1. The applicant should consider further reducing the density.
2. The applicant should evaluate the left turning traffic from the site for safety issues.
On February 8, 2006, the Planning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation for deferral of
these requests until such time that the Shore Drive Safety Task Force completed its work and provided
its recommendations regarding safety-oriented pedestrian and vehicular improvements to the corridor.
On April 20, 2006, the Shore Drive Safety Task Force presented its findings to the Shore Drive
Advisory Committee. The Task Force divided the recommendations into "regulatory"
recommendations and "infrastructure" recommendations. A further break down of those
recommendations included "short term", "mid term", and "long term" goals. The Task Force
presented 31 recommendations to the SDAC. Some of the recommendations include installation of
"yield to.pedestrian" signs, repairing damaged sidewalks, installation of sidewalks where none exist,
evaluation of crosswalks at intersections, evaluation of lower speed limits along Shore Drive, and
shoulder improvements. The applicant's plan is unaffected by the recommendations, as the primary
recommendation of the Task Force applicable to the site is that a sidewalk be installed. The applicant's
plan depicts the installation of a sidewalk along the frontage of the site. Installation of a crosswalk in
front of this site was discussed at the January 11 hearing; however, the recommendations of the Task
Force support improvement of the intersection at Pleasure House Road in order to provide a more safe
and controlled location for crossing as opposed to a mid-block location.
In response to the issues raised at the January 11 public hearing and to the recommendations of the
Task Force,
o The applicant has further reduced the proposed number of units from the 80 presented to the
SDAC on January 19 to 77 units (86 units were originally requested). The proposed 77 units
equate to 21 units to the acre, three below the permitted 24 units to the acre;
o As noted above in the discussion of the January 19 SDAC meeting, the height of the building
has been reduced;
o Staff recommends a condition be added to the use permit requiring the closure of the median
break that exists for N. Oliver Drive. Vehicles desiring to head eastbound on Shore Drive can
turn right from the subject site on to Shore Drive and make a U-turn at the median break for S.
Oliver Drive.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant proposes to close North Oliver Drive, rezone the existing R-10 (SO) residential properties
and the closed North Oliver Drive to Conditional 8-4 (SO) Mixed Use District and obtain a Conditional Use
Permit for multi-family dwellings at a density of 21 units per acre.
OCEAN PROPERTIESLLC
Agenda Itei'ns}5, 16,. 17
.~@g~2
The applicant assembled all of the properties fronting North Oliver Drive, north of Shore Drive, and
proposes to consolidate them into one site to be developed as a multi-family project. The submitted
conceptual site and landscape plan depicts a 3 to 4 story building with 77 multi-family units centered on
the site. Parking is located on the sides of the structure. The proposed building is three stories in height
along Shore Drive and on the western side of the site. The building graduates to four-stories in height
along the eastern and northern portions of the site. Parking is also located under the four-story sections of
the building. Open space varying in width from 55-feet to 115-feet is provided in the rear of the site
adjacent to Lake Bradford. The proposed storm water management facility is also located in this area.
Fifteen-foot landscape buffers are shown along the site frontage and along the western property line.
The submitted elevations depict a modified cottage style of building. Varying rooflines, porches and faux
gazebos provide architectural relief to the building. Upon entrance to the site from Shore Drive the
proposed building features an open area with covered colonnades above. The interior courtyard features
recreational amenities such as a pool and landscaped areas for the residents. The applicant indicates the
square footage of the units will range from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet.
LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION
EXISTING LAND USE: Nine single-family dwellings and North Oliver Drive currently occupy the proposed site.
The current R-1 0 Residential zoning allows for nine single-family dwellings.
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING:
North:
South:
. Lake Bradford
. Shore Drive
. Across Shore Drive is a shopping center I B-2 (SO) Community
Business
. WaWa I B-2 (SO) Community Business
. Waters Point Townhomes I A-12 (SO) Apartment
East:
West:
NATURAL RESOURCE AND
CULTURAL FEATURES:
To the rear of the site exists Lake Bradford. The site is located within the
Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Ordinance area.
There are no cultural features associated with the site.
AICUZ:
The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS
Oceana. .
IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES
MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Shore
Drive is a four lane divided minor suburban arterial in front of this site. The site is within the project limits
...,....... ,,", .- . . ",..'
.,..... '.,' - . ,'.,'
OCEAN PRC)PERTIESILC
Agenda Items15,16'i~17
}~~g!3
of the Shore Drive Phase II demonstration project. This project, which is currently in the scope definition
phase, will include intersection, pedestrian, and aesthetic improvements. A right-of-way reservation
along the frontage of Shore Drive may be required during detailed site plan review.
TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic
Volume
Shore Drive 22,516 ADT 28,200 ADT'- Existing land Use ~ - 90
ADT
Proposed land Use 3 -
505 ADT
Average Dally Tnps
2 as defined by 9 single-family homes
3 as defined by 77 multi-family homes
WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is an existing eight-inch water main and a 16-inch
transmission water main in Shore Drive, and a six-inch water main in North Oliver Drive. The existing sites will
have several existing 5/8-inch water meters, one of which may be used or upgraded for the project.
SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer gravity
main and a 24-inch HRSD force main existing in Shore Drive. Analysis of Pump Station #307 and the sanitary
sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated.
SCHOOLS:
School. Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2
Enrollment
Hermitage 552 672 6.2 4
Elementarv
Great Neck Middle 1124 1032 2.7 1
Cox HiQh 2116 1854 3.9 2
" . "
generation represents the number of students that the development will add to the school
2 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The
number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students).
Seven portable classrooms currently exist on both Great Neck Middle and Cox High sites.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being within the Primary Residential Area (Shore Drive
Corridor, Site 1). land use plan policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on
preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value, and aesthetic quality of the surrounding
stable neighborhoods. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-
residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future
development.
OCEAN PROPERTIES..t.LC
Agenda Ite.n~s15,16,Bt17
,1?@9!4
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requests for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 (SD)
Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District, Conditional Use Permit for Multi-family
dwellings, and Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on
the north side of Shore Drive and extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford. The proffers and conditions
are listed below.
In response to the issues raised at the January 11 public hearing and to the recommendations of the
Task Force,
D The applicant has further reduced the proposed number of units from the 80 presented to the
SDAC on January 19 to 77 units (86 units were originally requested). The proposed 77 units
equate to 21 units to the acre, three below the permitted 24 units to the acre;
D As noted above in the discussion of the January 19 SDAC meeting, the height of the building has
been reduced;
D Staff recommends a condition be added to the use permit requiring the closure of the median
break that exists for N. Oliver Drive. Vehicles desiring to head eastbound on Shore Drive can turn
right from the subject site on to Shore Drive and make a U-turn at the median break for S. Oliver
Drive.
The proposed density is within the guidelines for this size parcel in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay
District. Additionally, based on the reduction of units, the School Board now calculates that the school
population will be increased by only 4 elementary students, 1 middle school student, and 2 high school
students. Based on the type of units proposed for this development, those numbers could be less, as
these units are more commonly purchased by young, single professionals and empty-nesters. In regard
to traffic volume, the new figure for daily trips corresponding to the reduction in units is 505. According to
the City's Traffic Engineering office, this portion of Shore Drive has a capacity for 28,200 vehicle trips per
day. Presently the volume is 22,516 trips per day. Thus, the addition of 505 trips is still well below the
current capacity of the roadway.
The character of the Shore Drive corridor is defined by the unique positive relationship between its
residential and commercial components. This delicate balance is assisted by a set of design criteria, the
Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines, intended to make all these diverse structures physically
compatible with one another and with their setting The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is intended to
encourage sensitive and responsible development, balancing that need with respect for property rights of
owners of undeveloped and underdeveloped land. Before the adoption of the Shore Drive Corridor
Overlay District the history of development in the corridor had been characterized by too high density on
too smalLparcels of land. The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is intended, in part, to restore the
proper balance. The requirement for a conditional use permit for multi-family dwellings within the Shore
Drive Corridor recognizes that certain uses which, by their nature, can have an undue impact upon or be
incompatible with other uses of land within the immediate area. However, the proposed use may be
allowed under the controls, limitations and regulations of a conditional use permit, as long as the
proposed use is fundamentally compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff is charged with
evaluating the impact and compatibility of the proposed use, and recommending conditions and
restrictions that will assure the use as being compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located, both
in terms of existing land uses and conditions, and in terms of development proposed or permitted by right
in the area.
~:""'"
OCEAN PR(g)PERTIESJ..LC
Agenda Ite..ns15,16,117
.~~g!~
The Shore Drive Corridor is a unique resort residential community, which provides a wide mix of housing
styles and types. This particular request is rare in the Corridor in that the applicant has been able to
accumulate nine parcels of land for consolidation and development in accordance with the Shore Drive
Corridor Overlay District and Design Guidelines. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan's recommendations for this area. The proposed residential use and density are compatible with the
surrounding land use pattern, and is less than the permitted density for a parcel of this size within the
Shore Drive Corridor district. The submitted conceptual site layout and landscape plan depicts a
coordinated development of the site in terms of design, parking layout, landscaping, and traffic control
and circulation within the site. The submitted building elevations depict proposed buildings of three and
four stories in height to be constructed of high quality building materials in a design complementary to the
Shore Drive Corridor. Staff believes the submitted proffer agreement and conditions listed below will
produce a quality project that is both compatible with the area and consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan recommendations for the Shore Drive Corridor.
Thus, Staff recommends approval of the requests as proffered and conditioned below.
PROFFERS
The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The
applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these
proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"
(g107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve
as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning.
PROFFER 1:
When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development of this mixed
use site in terms of limited vehicular access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the
"CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIMUS
SHORE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA." Dated 8/31/05, prepared by MSA, PC. which has been exhibited to
the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept
Plan") shall be substantially adhered to.
PROFFER 2:
When the property is redeveloped, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via one (1) entrance from Shore
Drive.
PROFFER 3:
The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the
exhibit entitled "PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIUMS", which has been
exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning
("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials shall be synthetic cedar shake siding, beaded vinyl
and brick.
PROFFER 4:
OCEAN PR~PERTIES,~LC
Agenda Itel1lsi15,t6,lc17
e~g~6
,'-' ,".,'-'- ,'-,
There will be no more than seventy-seven (77) residential units within the building depicted on the Concept
Plan.
PROFFER 5:
Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of
applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code
requirements.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers are acceptable. The proffer agreement insures the site is limited to 86-
77 units and developed in accordance with the submitted site layout and landscape plan, and the submitted
building elevations.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated 9/14/05, and found it to be legally
sufficient and in acceptable legal form.
CONDITIONS for the STREET CLOSURE
1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee.
The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding
Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies
of the policy are available in the Planning Department.
2. The applicant shall re-subdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed
area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final
street closure approval.
3. The applicant shall provide an easement to the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works for
the continued maintenance of Lake Bradford. The actual size and location of the easement shall be
determined by the Department of Public Works.
4. The applicant shall verify that no public utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If
public utilities do exist, easements or relocation of the utility satisfactory to the City of Virginia Beach
Departments of Public Works or Public Utilities shall be provided prior to final plat approval.
5. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure.
Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the
right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility
. company must be provided.
6. . Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions
within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and
the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this
approval shall be considered null and void.
OCEAN PRE)PERTfESIiLC
Agenda Items15,t6,!~17
a~g\e7
,-:..,,- ',':',-.,'-;., "~;W"':,:_ :""
CONDITIONS for the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. The applicant shall install a five-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of Shore Drive and tie it into the
existing sidewalk located to the east of the site. The applicant shall also provide landscaping in
accordance with the Shore Drive Phase II Demonstration project within the right-of-way along the
entire frontage of Shore Drive.
2. The applicant shall provide a sidewalk from the building to the required five-foot sidewalk at Shore
Drive. The proposed sidewalk shall be constructed of either pavers or stamped concrete.
3. Fifty percent (50%) of the building exterior shall be constructed with hardi-plank siding. Synthetic cedar
shake siding, beaded vinyl and brick shall be used as accents and for architectural relief. All decks,
handrails and columns shall be wrapped with vinyl. Doors and windows shall be vinyl clad wood, vinyl
or aluminum. Roofing materials shall be standing seam metal, shake shingles, or architectural grade
shingles. Building and roof colors shall be neutral or earth tones.
4. The proposed berm along Shore Drive shall be 3 to 4 feet in height and shall meander and undulate
along the frontage. Plants listed in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan Appendices, landscaping
Guidelines, shall be used on the site.
5. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan for review and approval by City staff. All lighting on the
site should be consistent with those standards recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society.
6. The applicant shall maintain a 30-foot buffer adjacent to lake Bradford. The buffer area shall be left in
its' natural state and shall not be disturbed.
7. The applicant shall eliminate the straight / left turn lane from the plans and shall close the median
break on Shore Drive opposite the existing location of N. Oliver Drive. The applicant shall consult with
Public Works Capital Improvement Program division and Traffic Engineering division regarding the
method and materials to be used in closing the median.
NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances.
Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to
meet aI/applicable City Codes.
The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police
Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPT ED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site.
".-,.' ". ;".. ........
OCEAN PREl)PERTIES!.LC
Agenda Itemsit5,16,<~.t7
'~~g~~
../ iERTlES~LC
OCEAN PR~~t5,1.6';~i17
Agenda Itel1l..............~~~~
1.'6.....
<fIlCl
to""l/l J: ~ ~
"'0..... U^~f.l \J
f"i '7 -'If to.. ~ ~- U"' 4'IJ
flao:m" ..~cg,~ ~
;,; nl ~g::l~$ ~
~ :5....~\l)~...
f G; ~ E ~ fil ! .. ..
ftt 1:'" ::J'3E~~j
oW 0::> . tru: ~ .. ...
III ., N -g -g ~...", .. It .. 5- ~
C e lrl'~ QI c llG81~~~ is:
< I: 0 1II ,:,t, C 1':1._ .-
S ,,~ Q, i5.: ~~5-~ 5-3 1i
-~yeE .VItI ~.41o 0
{l)1Il1iJc..o. c..!::!.Cli::'::'~... r-
.ti
.n
U",..L<
i~ ~g ~
~Uli!
...."; ."" ..
-i" ~
~n"~
rJH~
~ .:-
~.-
If
w.&
~.L':'cJ
','", -~.~, -..- '. .' :"",'
- . - '. ~ - - - -
~,-,,-,"','-,~---"'-'-'-.' -.;.
ell
E
:;,
.-
c:
.-
E
o
0'"0
c: c:
~ 0
~U
!"C
c i..
3'0
s<S'+i-
!;"'C
~
,3t'U ~
.!l~ .
jiiWol -5
'i 1'1\ ~ :
i \loll "J: III
S!-~ 0 .,
~ ~ ~ ~
u- ~:>
f
J
a
f .l
din
',1 J
- 1 f
III !~, ~11t
~H Jill)
~r~ n.u
l!5~;;1 Ii!;J
...<~~ Jlfl-
:.~ih hi!
;B Ill, Ii
,flU
$
U /'.
-I " ~
'! . ~
-<. JJ ~ ~,;.
." ~ I I [
e
<Ii
,.
~
.f.
II
~f2
PROPOSED SITERLAN
,f
OCEAN PRO'PERTIES:LLC
Agenda Itelrl$15,16~~i1,7
P,g~JO
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIQ'N.",
OCEAN PR~~ERTIES~LC
Agenda Itel'r1$t5,t6'~i1,7
'J~~@,!I~JJ
PROPOSED BUILDING ELE'lAllON
OCEAN PR()PERTIESl.:.LC
Agenda IterrlS15,16,~/t7
P@g~1..2
Map E-3
Mo Not to Scole
CUP - Multiple-family dwellings
1 . 3/14/00
Conditional Use Permit (gasoline Sales in conjunction with
convenience and car -out food store
Conditional Use Permit Motor Vehicle Sales
Conditional Use Permit Motor Vehicle Sales
Rezoning (R-5R Resort Residential to Conditional A-24
A artment
Approved
A roved
A roved
Approved
2. 2/25/03
3. 5/9/88
4. 11/9/04
,- ,-- , ',' .'-'- ,;'-,
ZONINGHIS"'()B~i .
OCEAN PROPERTIES.iLC
Agenda Itelp$(15,...16,~17
. .P~!J~E~~
NOI1YJIlddV tIlIflS01J ltIHlI1S
I-
Z
w
-:E
w
I-
~
(f)
w
cr
::l
(J')
o
..J
o
(f)
B
~ ~.f
:o::G'....
.~.~ ~
8 e~
-- Q.-
1:., c:
., = :::
:.s ~
~"O e:I
~~ t
(1) Cig.\1
~~:Si::
:::l~<:$
(1)0--
o""g-5
d~~tij
fIJ=~rS
C J!~ .~
-'-c:~
c(ut<-~cn
Z::ci1:S
Q~!l:.,
t:..~<l>C:
g.E8.~~
<o2..!~
tI) Q,.= c
o"iS!S
gO;; tti<
~ ~.~ ';
0,,1:5
~;;5l~
~.se~
~Si51C
li~~1
_ ....c::"'.
.!? ; ~ or::
-' .... ~ -m
o
a;
~
"
...;
..0
e
!
<(
g "8
'E ~
~(.)w
.Cl. E
j<~
"~~.3:
., tl
go~
,,-0
4)io
.c.u_
~ ~ e
l1! &~
.~'g E
!g~
~5~
~e!'i
~oo
;1!E...;
j ~~
~,"::
~o_
fG- 0 c.
~ gin
c: Q.. ~
:ie~
E ".
>:~~c:
:!:utg-=
~ie~
-'20&,,?
j~8:::
!g~lO>
jij':iS 1! III
'-.515'8
~oiO
.g2-'O~
~~ ~I"';
~"_ u
-"" <(
~c::-Q.cb
?-,g go-;;
- e'" e
o~s
~J!~
"'_ 0
.,
c:E l,g~
~ ~ C>> g&S ,'_~o
-.. 'l''8.c,- Ill" .,;..;.<-
~:g~~~~f5~:~~~
~:.~-;;o-E';;~QO
ci..~ e .!e i~ Q ~ ti ~ 0
:=-E'E <%)'i(E ~ <<:: <J1'tic
~:8~=:~=~:e
,2 q) CG = e m c: it" vi v) E
:i ~ :=-~~.s ~! I'~ ~
""'~ ""'~"'s;,,o
;.s.i-oa.,E 8.,1': i:<5C)
'."Cl'E"; ''e!2c!O~
cg4>:S~S:Coft;o,$c
~~:iSi~~~o2...J
E--r>> ci1i C)~ UL~~
*a.. ~ .i -= -~ e:= -e ~ :: c
.- ~ :) 0 W i'O 2'-~ ~o cp
'lii~.c 0 ~- '; g',g....
C J! ai :6';j 0 ~ ':E Q.'SW
~.~~.5.E gse ~~ ~
!.! G (p~.s~ g (; =Q)...=
~&= ~e'~ ~:~ 0')"3l'.~
~ M,E 0 cp t) 0 e 8 5r,!:! M
Ca.-a"\i:QQiE-- .
<l>-"c:a=5'Eo""'~
:2 '5 e =cu. "';e ~ ~ a ~
!l! 5 s g.o .~150 E 0 4><Q>
ii:;.5 e~,5:~ :~=~
;);;;.9-8<: E E~" c: c: 0
.c "'lii.. 8" "'''""ojU
i~""o.. 'St.fJ:e=~ =
'!ii.s:lI.!:! 0"0 cl 0 &.,>
:.='t:Ji C!G_ c=- C< .Q ..
i:] o~ i~$ u;-~ o,~o
~ ",g>~E S!.s..! 0 ;-t;~
N '9='EQ;l-C)C:J~=uC:-{i
~ ,g ..:? ~ -gie 'S,g ~
l\l5~.[ijg~12J!~~~
Q..ooEQ._~-fI)_,,,,,,_
",,0
.s::
:; 0
'C "'-
~~~.g
~ - .... Q.
;J16.e~~
;..s-S! ~~
'c E~ ~ -n
'~5 5~ ~
m 1ii 0.. ttJ.~
~2.!';=
~~Em,5
:sg~~g
8~ g;~u
t:--:-: O;;f
.ggic.i
t;-_~t)_S
E2~~1!
0--9-,.0,-= -
e ~ j. - fIO.s
.- i Q. '"
"'~o.cg>
:5 c...... -;; 'n .~"
..['80" './
.c::: "" c 9. ('\
-.-.2>;;;
~..'8.. co ,
..-.t:..c Cl ~'l..~\
i:;;g'8,sq',:
U c J::; ic~,.;; \
- fJ; c: :3 Cl) -l ''';;'
Z,oe ~ g"" .,;~~~..
.. J:>. -.2.9l "'!;
o "0 .. ~ :is 1: 1"
fi 3~~&M';'j\i.
1\ - c: c: "UJ
""" ,. --::....., \II:
ii:~.g;;~c.. .~.
~~g.&.~~ ~
w g g;~'5 8 >.&
U........OCl<
'"
D
E
.,
:;
g>
'"
~
;;;
:::;
~e
.,,,
....;
~;
Q::::
0';:
~E
''''
;z
:c
n::::
iCi..
:,-,
:'E
,<<I
[,g
,""
ig.
'2
L
;~
I~
!~
r;
1~
1~
I-2\"
Ie
,,,
.~
~
f
~
~
i
~~?
~~.~
'"':!~
H,
\0-')...1:.
'"
III
...
U
o
..
..
<(
..0
I-
Z
W
:::a
w
I-
~
(f)
w
cr
::l
(J')
o
..J
C,)
(J')
is
"0
'"
e
o
l?-
S
:::
"c
:::
~
<>
o
.;
~~
:;1"- '"
~~. -0
d E- ~ '8
"'= ~ ~
c c'. ::: '"
~~ ~~
ct c; >.c
C,)e".Q~
- 1: Cl1't-
~ ~,s i~
~ c:"~,g~
g;2S==
::E4.l4tS
E.: ~ ~
8;;.:.2
t?;~i6~
=~~s
c; Q.-e
:'!c:""'<Ii
=,2 ~.1S
~m=c:
:'~:ii
:6 ~~ Co
~ c......
..
:l
;;
.5
.,;
Iii
.c
E
~
0'
8
:g
g>
'0,
'"
s
::!;
>-
!
E
~
~
~
c
OJ
.,
<.
'"
:::
'~
15
'C
..
~
~~
~ ,~
0'11)
- Q
~~
.~~
.g:;
!~
g2l
~~
<<I:";'
~~
a:s:.:::::
.c '"
-'"
"''''
:5~
~~
i'J
,~.~
",""
-,,'"
'i,~
-..
~~ "ii
...;~
(;
<Ii
..
..
c:
..;;;
:J
.tJ
E-
.;:
c'.
:2
..
~
i:
..
...
:::-
,2
15
8-
(;
"
..
13g
:to::>
tII~
:;:'2
e",
J~
is
o~
-5~
lEg
"'-
""c:
~=
'" ~
" Q;.
t3~
rIi
;;;
.c
~
E
15
-5
S3 0 rA
$ o~ 8
LLI ~~ ~
0::-.1: '"
:::l a ~ o~
UJ.:: ..Q ~~
g" E U
O~J;q~~
(1)~ . g' c: ~
5'Sl'~ ",::::
a::.~ t'!g=~
~~.s~~~
:>$i~~"'';
oo[-~~
:>->.",$<0'=
....1:~a::g~
O::~"'E-"
~g8.8~~
~';8c:"~Z
Q.~~,~~s
o .~,~ ~ 0
:::~cOQ)
,g ~ ~~ c
~ ~ 0 ~i
l:'1~'82Q.
:SOl~~t
.$ ~~.s,g
~Q.o"'~
~~g~~
8 ;; '~ ~
~
g
t
:::
;;;
:::
J:J
'0
.,
~
~~
5~
-~~
~;
.!~
g1!
i~
= ;;...'
~5
=:.::
~o.
_0-
"''''
:;'"
~;;
en.&:
:j
.5 0.
~.E
.c~
1i~
'"
:J~
N
,0
<Ii
..
'"
"
';;;
:::
.c
c'.
:2
e
..
€
'"
...
'"
.2
10
8.
(;
"
'"
i--
o
:Z:'"
.!!L2
...;;
~.~
~~
'"
~o
8.'8
0-
~'"
"'0
"'E!-
=0
'"
c:
c.'-
~c:
c.:::
""~
~J!
~o
00
~~*
~~;
~Q.~
n &
u
-;
..
j
s
..
ii'
~
~
~
.,
L~
I..
i-
NOI1YJI1ddV tIlIflS01J ltItIlI1S
15
.::>
E
'"
:;
g>
'(1)
'"
e
'"
::
i-
:;;
....
:2
>
~
(.)
.....
-'
<Ii
'"
'i:
c.
g.
o:~
:::.8
2H
\O::!;
N
o
OCEAN PROPERTIES1LC
Agenda Items15,16,~,.17
Pa<e14
......!;I......,,,.
I-
Z
w
::E
w
S
C/)
W
0:::
:::l
C/)
g
u
C/)
5
(j=
!=
..n
<II .Ql
~:21S
j~j
""0"0
~1Il 16
.~ 16 ..
:n.~
e€,=
~:~
ft)e5.~
1l.I~0'';:::
!i1;S
1l)_~R
oOe<>
-'~=~
OtO-f4
!!:=gB
~~j~
~ ~ g>~
o :g'- ..
- iZI-g'~
!:CTIc.-.
c"i& e ,'" "'"
c""-='"'
<~i,,;~
~ ;..~ 8
ol:~!
i1 8. : "=
..eSli
c Cl.S""
8J ~i
~"-:l::
~e$
-><i.; ...
'iiii~~
ii)-~~
:::i.2 :I ~
~
0:5_
e_c
00_
I:c,2
08=
i-5
$ 8.::
1? 0 i
~..., E
_cc
"''''.Ii
.::5 ,>
c,ClO
i:-~ (!)
.ne-
e: '" l'l
.,g C ~
c-~
~i~
i'G~C
. ~s
~ Q. c
.-CiS
~~I
'c. if (J)
:E -.-~
.. s c .
]6-80
:i~~;
! -~ e-~
~"" 8:
.i! 1! ... ll>
~~~"8
.g 2:- g (.)
-~ (0-'
iE~-~
<1>'_ 0
~'l;IG;tf
:5~<
$;::OV)
~ g;j
e.g Gi
8!il.s
00
i:,",~ o:i
.Sg. Ql 'i ~ >
e'" .:::5"'11> .
.. <II "',,'!ll0 o.C
oS.. ~]1l] g'E ':;~~
Qi..g,i;;:l2!l;igc::;;;
:5.!c::.:5eE......:2~
~....=:.c >0... Sl fIi.!!!.!!
Q.~'~'_ a>s Oc:: 0 GJ c::
:c 'E "c ~ ';C:Ql c: ':~ :e ~ =
....0..'" 3:"".~c::O
c:.. Q.c-.!!( bJ:>c'--,'
g:(Q::.~i)C-t>>co~~
.!!! c$;:-.I#~': C> ~ c::
(D.---........-u 0 ~.. - 0
;; :!.~a~.5 !.~~:~
;j"O~__.. _<<tOe
..!i~..i~:~u'"
Co EJ1-.. .s:",e
;"....:Cl=~..~;:lIlS
E~! Ci aiii.! ..~.~ 3!
'Cl.c>'iii.:..e-1!oco
:;:.::""O;l"'i;,a....!Cl
! ~~.!!:o:l!i ~Q-8
_c-'" ~_ 9)
-8....= c "" 8 '" ",g,-
"'''o...ce-c>oe-'
~ 1Il 'lI t.!.9l~'ES!.,'E
'lii ;0 ~ .. .!! ill E Q,= CD
~=..!: () ~ ~ ls 8 g lsS
lI>tlLr.!~ 5 ~ o.iII&S
Il~~.!~~ ~ i.,g i
.-_.Se"Oc !.",;e.1Il
~.!!l,g.8'::>'E 'l! (; O.!!!',
.c41.c C::-CQe::>j
"8, ~~: ~ ~:ll! ,,~="'o'
1ii"'c.flo"CIe"<li..c
=:2,!:C_e:50ll>clll;;;
S.fnQ"C"- .....s::.o4t.
:c.gg>i~Ij~a'ii~~
" ~:a'c &~ i Sf lil Eo J ""
Cl.::>41!":::>;e:::> ' 1Il
-C:41<<lS{u'-1lf "8
~8 a E <>,5 i_ 8..8u
t5
"Q
g t'-..
::;
~~
0.T'
~"~ ~
~\ ...,
C:::A
~,
t-g
'QZ
~:s
oc:
.si ~ "8
~.8,=:a
S:gE
=.:.... ~
Beoll""
1lI:2:5 ,;1
" '~: o:s
g~.~:~
fA' Q.O"O
- .. Cl.;!2
.E. ,ct1 '0 ::I
!!!=i]l
.! j goii
"t'_._U)
.~ :e~ !
~~:g:s
O~_....
u &J:.2
~g ~~: '
.. :2'w >o:g.
E::gc,g",
~- 8.0 ~
s!$tG('l')tC1
O!... c..
~c "''''
.... E ...-
_.....llI.:
.! :9. ": t1l .S
-~O>~..
~_.Q:j,g lI> g .
1:' (QQ.-
8~!e2-r
: :g.~ ~~ ~.
Z J'.J:) c'- '"
o ~ a:o ., ,Ill
___.....::::=::51:::
~~.a...e
u.."I;12""...
!!;'!-s~~so.. ~
",lI>1l 0 11. i .n
ffi'E.:: c: B, ill" ~
u-= ~~1;lo~<
i
c::
SC
J- E
ld
:;:E
..J Q.
~!:'~
~,,~~
~-i;\
~~l
l;" a. ;;
i ~
~
J
~
u
cL
~ ..
CD .s
-' ..
.., '8
E ~
! :2
<( ..,
g 8
11 ::
jj( cj .
Iii .W
.,.ll.. ~
.,<(=
~~,.~
NOI1V:>I1ddv ~NINOZffiI 1VNOIlIUNOJ
.
..;
~
;;;
.s
,,;
ii
.D
is
EO
i
1;;
~
c::
'2
""
e
.c
'0 ~
~ ~
w"" 0
a:: ~ is
~, .!?
0.5 '0
<3 g- ~-e
fIJ --= ,~.,
is ci. -
....- "' ~
z~ =i
< (D >.""'
3~,~i~
t':~~:c;
<~'5o~
~;;~
c.:5i,.
8!;:j
jll"Q.CQl
'e "'.0
~8!~
~c"'.,;
'is.. :2.! 0;
g.,~ i -€
.!:s::;~
-2',
~o~
go
'Sl
01
C
'"
::;
r:
~
j
~
is
.0
E
..
::E
~
'0.
'"
c
'"
:::
~
~
32
>
'"
o
u
..;
..J
,,;
~
!
e
ll.~
~~
QI E
" "'
0:::
~
'E
OJ
'"
'"
..
c
';;
;::l
.c
'Q
OJ
:i
s-e
.t;l ~
a~
- .,
~g
~~
'" -
~.~
!i3
c",
41_
i~
a:;...
~~
tIJ=:
s::.o.
_0.
..'"
:5!
;-
..J:
=~
5:0.
....-
::>J:
.cO>
";5,g
7.0$
:.:i!
'"
I ~
,iii
l~
J 1.0;
j j;
II t
i I ~
! j g,
114
Ill.
1.!'2~
I)~
I' ~I
&:.0
-Q.
,;8
" ~ c::
. ~'c
l~i
10
,,;
~
i)
E
0;
.c
~o
e<s
i~
!!! ~'" ~
...... 16
::). ~ o"B
~::~ fIJ~
..l\:E ~'"
U~~O>"'~
~lE ci.,C:: C II>
c'e:E~.!":
a::: ,u, m - - v_
~'~ i:g!,~
ii!:ii~'i'5
o Q ':.!!I~
~~C;;J!...,s.
<< 1:1 ,2 C;.~
Q.~E~"
~Ke.~!.i~
a::"'=:oc:c.8
l\. _>- U .2" ~. d
c::a:~ '_
o I1li N Q
15';:'2 wi
t~ ~~<<;
~ ~ O!i
,"'.i!:''it e 0-
;;_"c._
~ il~i
-,~Q..R-U)
~!.53s
8~;,.-:
<Ii
~
""
'0
....,
lil
:s
f-
0::
G>
4>
....J
~
,~
G;
..
..
1Il
S
..
::>
.c
'it
~
S'B
~ ~
0",
-~~
:e~
'a; :.::
.g~
1'5
c:..
Cl_
i~
fC'~'
C
~~
<tl=
.:: c"
_c"
"''''
~~
51:5
:U
.,. Q,
"'.-
::l,c
.c'"
C
:gg
-'"
.. -
,- II>
..,J...
; "Ii
I~
~ .~
!.Q
I ef
~~
j .e.
I~
jt
Ii
Ie-
, 8
I~
,0I:c:
~ ~v2
~,~
jo~
In
"'e-
=8
e~
.,::>
.c.
~1
~o
Bo
s
'"
g
,go.
I-
t ~
~!
t'<
l~
-
Q.
~
'~
l
W
Jt!~
3'0;0
ri
ut~
:
~
N
x
"',:,:.::., " , ":::'
OCEAN PRC>I?E:RTIES<~LC
Agenda Ite~st5,t6,~/t7
.1?@~J5
IIlIh
IJ)'
..".
~A
~
ti'"iS
I.ll ~
0...3
(/;,0
<>.,
-:=::::(ij
.€'5~
~..-
"_->c
SOC:
,_ ~ en
2:' QJ ,rti
Ill-o Q
"":;;.2
o!:!;;:
:'2 0. III
>11)'"
en e-S ~
I/J~O""
a:=-c
::;)~-gg
"'o""tl
g~~,,:
~~gB
::~]~
~~~~
o:l'6.~
-Q):;)C:
a-rnl!F
~.6';-':~
.... 4oQ." 0
~ ;'.1< 8
cP: ~ 1:!
ti &. .,,'"
~~~i
o~ ;;.r:.
UQ)4)U
1=--'"
~:,"~
o::>:!?~
c r:r ...
..-;~ft)fI)
'i1j ;~~
-.;:5;;:;;:
::i.2:il5l
(/)
W
fX:
::>
(/)
o
....I
()
(/)
B
ci
a.:
~ '"
Q) 2l
.... '"
"" 'g
E ::
.! oot
oot ""
e "C
o 8
~ ::
~<.iui
.0. E
~'tti.m
~~.~
Q
lU:5_
:s'O;:
a;EJ5
.s::.lPc
~:<o
.!! 8.~
.~ 0 a;
~~ e
-..c
:5=~
0.00
~ g~
c: ~ ~
.!2 g> 0
~'2;~
~I.lle;;
"'...,
~g.!
c: Q..s
UlCO
EOiji
Ole. i '?
:2 ~'"
~~r::p
oogo
~~!!M
e-g g,,,,
~'ii 8~
~- c: ... II)
~~~"8
'!$2:>go
~t)ft)a:i
e:!?'5>
~~l~ti
\l-,g ~
... a:, -
S ~;
e--;;;
80;::
>-
~E
=: c..(U~o =
.- '-,I::. fA.1>> >
C :C3i-"'4.l ..:
! ~,'O fD 5 ~~ ~.~~
::tIil'~m.Q=t'Gc5u)cfJ
(UfIO -"Oil'GCqttiOC'ii
.c:...g>~giUE..E.2ell
0-;=:.c;'1o.. ~ 0'!!.s
"''''' e.- ";:; 0 c: SI !lie;;
:c E E ! ti ij: ~ 'r;; = ~=
~:81=q,o.E~"s~
.QfhS,-!!O'}c:~g-t:~
~ ~r::@:.9.~ 0: G;J ~'E
CI)---C,Cf,lle,-- 0
~~bo~..s8.~i~o::
" -;;.. , .en c::
~~~~~]~;,~~~
:g~=i~~~5~CUE
eo.., Cii g= 4) ..~.!l4>
'o.g'~:5 '" ~:5'go.~ ~
..- += :J 0 ,tI) (0 2:~ ....:Cl.' C')
~ 3.D.G) ~-a;"Oo=-
51': 4i::'{j) oE.il'~ ~ 5
:; .1!?~c: ~ 8 s ~'~'-.3
,S So': 4) ~B'E-..!2!"C
l!! _ .. "'.: - ;;;J -c..! C
....:5 ~-.~ (f) !;;E-"
~~S!iG)5u:~o';
4>Q,.-Q~G)c""O"~-
_:2:~.i!5i~if)-a(/)
q,flOCioC3'C'I"-oQGfCb-
~.~c:.l:~E 8.EED~
";;ca:.S es c Eoti.
ifii:;:u'5EE80>:;->
-g~i~~~=!~e~..:
iiCGcl!lo'OG)a:~cco
5i~:c;;s~~~6:C?
~~ g>i-~i~:5'5..:5~
tv !=~ CPct)(DQi"coeiCD'.l
e;; ~ Q) g>~ -g ,! !l 0 1 4)
~6~igg~~~Q)'~
0. <> 0 E C._ <>> _ 0...0 0
I-
Z
W
.;:;::
w
I-
~
(/)
W
0:::
::>
(/)
o
....I
()
en
B
-0 ui
oS 4)
.. OJ
~ -;;;
e. 5
g rn
t: c;
C D
::> E
;; OJ
.<:. E
'0 ri
0. 8
r.Ji :::
~~ 0
::IE ~
~~ 0
c3 E ~'B
cn~ E~
o ~ ~ ~
....90 .,~
z~ 5<b
(3 ~ "l-';
- 't:: Oll-
er co c: .!::?
11. c.:'~ o~
oot.g:g:g~
~~~s.
e;tI:I~
8-a;;:.Q
:~5~
~8&il
lH: ti
Q..;::'::' Q)
Q. m _ c::
:'~~i
;; ~~ a.
~ o~
0)
c:
'0,
'"
"
..
::;
~
~
E
~
~
~
"
CIJ
III
..
ell
"
'fii
;;;J
J;)
-g
~
='B
~~
0..,
.~~
~~
.g~
!~
~.s
~~
n:l~
~~
C'C=
.c 0..
_0.
....
:; ,Q)-
U)J::.
",-
...c:
;l.~
.~ ,g.
~~
1ij.2
~~
Qj
D
E
III
::;
'"
e;;
'0,
'"
c
'"
::;
~
Cii
...
-0
.;;
'"
Cl
c.;i
...)
...)
.,;
'"
;:
'"
a.
!:!
~.8
iH
0::;
N
o
.,;
..
OJ
c:
-~
.c
if
~
Ii
:;:
~
'"
e;;
1:
..
Co
ef
III
D
E
Qj '"
.c: E
~o 1li
~ ~ fj
Q.~ ~
I/J 1t ~
~ Eo; ..
fl)J5.s '5'B
o _ ~ ~ ca
..... :: E. E::l
f.) l!!~6", III
!l'~ e:,E c; g
Cl'6'-~ell<::
a:,~~g=~
W\.o.42.g~~
~i!~li
>-. ~So::::
l:~6.s!=S
a:~""c..e
~~~~.~~
0,... . ,m CD
r:r::o<O;8s::.o
rL~ =4)0
o::.'l~-a;
c::'- c. 0 -
11~fl
~~j _ 0.
:5~~;U).
-Se-&;S.e
.Qo..~8-"
2o"'e;;:!l.s
a;:<i;
0:::::3"-:
'0
;;
~
o
=
..,j
rii
Ci.i
OIl
..
'"
:e
c
u
c:i
~
Cl
J;)
~ "
::;'"'
",""
!;....~
0",,'
~~
~ '''0 '>'"0
::;"'!!!is
~.~~ ~
a;~u:X: ~
~2!ci=~
;;_c:<;;_
~'e~.c:'E
Cl 0.. oot If} '"
~ *''g
:S.Q"5~
~ '" 0";:
a:~~~
~.g~~
CD =0:0
:3-,!::!,;; ::
~ Q. 14Q.
" Q. O"'C
--tUQ.Q,>
..s0)~""5
e.:: .c:"C
-- c; Q.)
.! 2 got;
"C_'- tI)
,~~j~
~~i5.2
8~.sQ
5 S sQ.
~5,e~<Ii
",'- .. '" '"
t::1ig.,,~
.E.::o..o {)
c:::.: .IQ C"') {to
- 0 '(1)_ Q,.
CC""JA9'li
=-E "'.- t.
_ o~_s= '
~:9-~<;.5
~8 go~~ 1
__ Q'C ~ 0 ......
1: ~'" .-.-
4>Cell u~~.
Qo..c:-.2...J
::g.~~~~
z...:.Q~.-tA
Q.se~s~
!C~.g:~ ..~
9 ~]l:5 g>Q. ~
~Gi-6a:~i '~.
a: ~ 1ll e;; R 8 !j!
~~~~go~.f:
~
~
e
'"
..
of>
1ll
c:
'f2
.i$
"0
'"
,~
~~
o ~
'~8
~~
'q; :::
.g .(.0)
~i
ii.s
~~
to";":
g! .~
(1S=
.c: Q,
_0.
"''''
:5.,
:g=
..,::
~ .~
.E 0.
~.:E
.ol!
~.g
~~
N
.,;
..
.,
c:
.g;
::>
.0
~
'"
:;:
~
'"
c:
1::
'"
0.
C
o
~
8-
8
'"
....
o
:tc:
,~.2
a!
~'2
o~
~o
"'."
~~
0.0
"'0.
=8
e;;
e'c
ell :;
.c:~
~il
~o
00
><
1.
I~
l-s
i~
l.li
l~
J!
:i~
~ G
1~
l~
~
I..
eN~
2,-
J'~_
~~i
.!fa.,
~ II
'"
1\
~
~
8
;;
~
.i
.~
~~~
Joi
~;:~
S ~-;
o.e..a::
.B
..
o
0.
15
'"
..
55
:to:::
{/)S
.-c
-'"
~~
~~
..~
:;0
-e.
..8
Q-E
.cc:
.x'"
"'-
.!.!
00
o
OCEAN PROPERTIESlLC
Agenda ItelTisi15,16, .....~...t7
.P@~J6
It<
f.i
II
I-
Z
W
,~
W
I-
~
CI)
W
0:::
::>
CI)
o
..J
(,)
CI)
a
ut;;
8.]
1Q\,)
e:(l)
~:E-a
j~j'
110--0
floC
'iE ~:
~~~~
CDe?:
~ c.~
ooE~g>
w~o~
ll:~-~
~Q~@
g ~~ ":
u~_..".
!!2.egs
o tii '$'z
;;!;~5i
~=,g~
E~-5i_
c~.s.~~
~..a5:.;'"
~~<~ ~
~8.:';
~a~i
o..,...e
~o).u
ci'i;~
~",f$.
JZi..<ri
-"Gl8
"ii e.Sl.~
l!;~(l)
...J_u}.1n!
o
0.:
~
'"
....
<6
E
CD
s;;
<::
Gl
i!~o
00_
__tJ
~8~
~~o
$ 8.~
J~c ~
~'" E
;r ~ s
J:J:Gl
~; ~
i:~"
.~ g>~
S'~...J
",,,,..,
C;(t1!C:
c.:s9:CI
2110 g,g
" a. '"
g;U5
e"'"
~o. -5 ~
';::'...",
~ c: C '
.~ ~go
~~!!;;
'"' CD e.~
~-s 8:;'
,- _C.....I#
~ .~ ~ -g
.g.a:-gu
ttl'lj '" .
"Ee-~
_._ 0
11: "Qlooo -~
~~~~
::10 8..l!
-j?'"
L~
agE
0.,
];;0_ '"
E ,g.~~~ >
c: a; tj)-:Q.z
1 c '" c ~= !:?2-<::
-",~a:..ag..=::l.;..
a\llO)=~~~f'~g-;;
~~~i5eE:~~~
c:~e.~ i ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ c
s: c e ~a; t:: c: '0<-= ;=
~:::8jl=:g.El;E2
.2....""!? g; r:! g-"!oI
ce ~efi,g =:: 0:_ = o~
i1 .- :.;..- to) ';t ~'A - ~ 0
:; ~~5:.5 !i:~~::
....,~~,,;-g~:::"''tl1iS
agCD~.!1i1O~'~nlE
&e-:54t:.;:-="'OI:e>E
E~~jglij?"..8~f
'0. III .. _ '" - - -g '0 i: Q
'-.f;::JOfl!m.~='....~C)
-;; s.c!1' 4)_tS- 0:_
c~...-=;50::;:jCDO-~
.2 iL! c:!2 ~- ~ CJ):~ 0
]1'~o':.:c ~-U;.5 ~e;;
l!1-..8~..8...g~-a~r:
~5;; ! e 'S~ ~ i::;
e.- c -0 0 eo
...2-;; j?9! 'l! c <1 i5---
.,J: e'-.ii:= 0 ...!lw
11. ~.!ellg>~~"'i~
"oc:-_._",-.1<1 \I)
.-;:-eoe. S""'-
~S2-8.l::'~~gO~'..
.Q ! i as :8 1):= - ~ o.$? ,
i~-o li.~!..e5-
-;;=Q)~!t1~"O:c)<<I"RlCO
~,;;;t :s = _ ~ J::. qJ - cD -
2'" ",e._=_i1c:<<>'1
....Q .- 4>1;1 ."'1!= ".eN
~iilg'~El!!;S-'O!eN
<< .:..='E&Q)4)q;O~j""
ieQ~~'5~!8g '"
-'Eo"<:'o""<<>- "8
~8 5 E 8.,= ~= !..8u
1
'"
s
I-
Z
W
~
W
....
~
CI)
w
0:::
::>
(/)
g
(,)
CI)
a
i
0;
~
8 4ff
.S as
C D
'" E
~ III
.c: E
'0 e
: ~
ll! ~ 'S
~'lil iO.
O.E Q
dEf~
6~ ~-~
l-it '" 8
z't; ='"
(H~~
i ~ ~11 ~
~~~ji3
<,2s~g
e ltl G2:5.
e.= ~"
8.!=~
tUt=j
.!le~<.i
c ,f~ &:c;
m. :c' co ~
ig1~
c.!'i-e
: 'ELi i
...r;;:m-JQ..
-~.
::::0-
g'
'&
'"
c:
...
:;
?:-
~
E
.!!
~
j
E
III
:;
""
r:
's,
..
r:
..
:;
~
~
:2
>
'"
o
<.i
...i
...i
iii
.$
r
~
E
~j
B~
O::E
'"
..
co
'g
..
..
<:
oa
g g
~ ~
&ll..'ici
fliD.:~
~~~
l/;l:;S:
'}:
~
'"
..
..
'"
r:
'ijj
::
J::l
'tl
~
.!!
~'B
o~
~ '"
_i~
~~
~]
~~
~,.s
ii~
=.....
~5
=-~
..co.
-Q.
....
=e
dJ,c
",-
...r:;;
~i
,~ 'Q.
!=
.0"
r:
'a2
-..
"'-
-- Cl:
....-
N
5
.,;
.,
'"
c:
'in
::
.0
If
~
Ii
i:
.,
!
'C
..
Q.
C
.2
~
e.
8
..
Sg
:i!:-;;
,~ .fi
ci
,g~
t~
tDE!
=&
;8
~-~
....=>
0-
",,,,
5E
fb
j
E
~
:;;
.r:;;
~o f!'
80 ('l
1: ~
~ ~.~ CD
~~E o"B
g'es :et
()e""c,~:g
!2~o:,EC~
~;~~~~
Bj'i ~:e ~~
~.~ [~i~
~~gs~$.
~ II ii ~
~~OC~~
CL~~.,gG1u
a.!lii~1P
s:..clS..
.2",'",.."
~ i e''t:!
~ a~ ~i
'~~~a':
;S!o..8~
"' e e.- S
-=0.8-"
~~ r:::ls
8;'g~
~
ill
~
r:
..
'"
.0
j
.S!
rti ~"B
~ CD:Q:
g 0 ~
::: ~~g
~ !~
~ ~~
'" i:1j
= ~::
~ :i~
~ ....
:r ~~
e ..,g
.. J: a.
Q) 1ii'
~ 54)
~ ;=
",J:
~'J
'~2-
::;>'::
.<l~
1ijg
-0;
;;S"~
J!
.~
1)
c:
..
..,
r:
to
.0
...
.E
'"
..
J:
0>
:>
:::
!i
c
.,
>
.,
Cii
.::~'C
!!;~*!?
g ~ ;;.."
c.ce~
'g '" Ill.::
<<: ~2:5 _t.1
'" '8 ""::5
: 2=~::
_Q.lI.lQ.
,!Ii Ii 8..i
" -
_,_ e~ =',
E=~i
"'- -
J: .. g'v
al =-- '"
~!: :e"~ ~
~~~E
Q~....-
" :s.-.S .ii!
g-.sQ.
:; .~ ~ ~ &
E35i>~
~ E ~~, ~
,- 0.1%)...... Q.
e~-<fJ.~
:e~~.i~
~~-:.=,S
-B;g>"''''
,j;' ..." 'I: g
1: -.. ~'.o:;
2la..8E?
- g. ~~ 0.10
Z ..;25 ts.5
o ~ a~ ~
1=--"-
<~:J2:.e
2g1= ~&:
u..~::= C'-
;:::-8-6o'E; e
Ii <=..8" 8 8 .~..
u~~-~:io:~<
N
~
Co! -. "'.....,
~ ..JL
'" >;,
;!'>5 >
'a~,-i ::
~~'~ .f/t~
~ .~~~ ~
~""::: gew
;r, t-!i::: "
.....~c~~
'O%~.::z
~ C -~ ~r;
o&$UJet
I !~
I i2
, I&:
I !i
I ia;
i !~
\i ;'S
,:...~j "'l;.
g
~
<in
::
.0
g
""
Ii
i:
'"
:;;
c::
'I:
0;
C.
C
.9
co
g,
8
..
'""
o
;,:, C
.!!! .2
....'7V
~ .~
~:s
~~
gi
E1i
a.o
ea.
=8
"'c
....;:
~5
J:~
~~
"0
t3~
If
Ii
I~
~
;~~
~n~
'~~~
"'.n
W-i;
i "
~
fi
~
"
~
l
?'
S
!;:!~
'!,,1l
~....::~
di
"..'"
o
x
.--.-...., " ",.. .,'.,
OCEAN PREDPERTIES'I..LC
Agenda Itel)1s15,t6,i~t7
Pag!;17
't)"E
.. ~
0..2
en< '"
..<>
~:~~
j~.!l
UJ.'-' "'C
Q) 0 l;:
,2 !! '"
~ll><Ii
4) 'Q q>
0'~,9
Clle~
~ ~51
VJe=~
W~o:;::
o::"--C:::
:>~-gg
(#)0""8
9~~~
<.:I"'-dl
~=g8
3~:g~
~ ~ g>~
o::l:;;.!!l
E~-5~_
lr~ ,~.g ~
4(.QQ).;W
o!lB~
'" >._ 0
.'t:~'"
~ &1;
~ K~i
o"OZ.s:.
>UQ):II)t.l
i7i2,;~
o~!$
c::: r::r ...
..::.::epMrn
16 ~.~~
;;.;;~~
,- 0" ..
-1_",410
o
a.:
~ ..
.. CD
..J Cii
<<S 'u
I: g
~ ~
<: ..,
c "
o g
~ .~
~~uJ
.:1. E
~.(.~
$~~
IV
<l>';;~
c:._ 0
00_
C:cg
~ ~I'E
~ _ 0
2! ~~
.~g i
II) c::: E
~5~
- >
c.:0;I 0
:EOO
"'e-
c::: 0> ~
gc:~
e"ii ......
c;rn"O
;;!!fii
~g,.s
c::: .!!l
""'Il)
~~g
RCL '5 (J)
:2rh Ie
tile c: .
5~~C;
= 0"-
rc-.i!:--(l')
-- 0.1
! g e~
~~ 8:;'
:0.5 Ii> C)
'00';;'8
..g2'go
~ ti I>> .
C :e-~
~._ 0
..."C .....:
~ g ~~
'" :.; 0 ~
..... ra 0.-
15 g>!
0...- 1V
o'Oc
0>_
0<11
~<a_ '"
_ g.o'5~ >
c: - .=';; '" '" .,.;
:0 ~ ~Q..tPoc.(.)
.c 3= ".8 0 Cl;;:: :; :E <:
::"'0'0) =~'Eott).Cl')
G>tnO)fti32~CCfDft>t:U;
=~C.cg~E0~gfl!
o =:-=~~~rh'!::.s
,g.~g.; ~~ os;.~ i!!.s
~ ~ 5 CD ~ Q,l i ~ ~ ~o
=~U--CQO.Qu~-
.2~-=-=~.:gc4)C'Co~
~~g:~~.~ ~.~ e ~ g
~ ~ >,o~.5 ~-i~ ~u
".0::::" (f)ch.2'E
o Q}C.~",'i ~ ~ I () IV
::gll>-c.s!1O<e_'sIlIE
g_:lQ>15~..ot::"'E
E;'q)"'C~G)rnQ)V)Q;:
'I c:..5.! C) 'm..s-gS^~ ~
~~'~o=i~.2~~O
~ ~.~J!.~O~j ~o1;
~.i~'; ~ ~ ~ Q~^e ($
= )('0-.1::) :;-.5 >--4l..J
'$=OQ;"$~E.5!Q;'"g
- - _ ~.r:. '" ~ <= Q..c
~~= -'x(,t)-S::E-CU
:C-",5: ti4)o8co~
<II,s;!.;; g>.!~ c: 0 0 in(i,j
~~ ~'6.8~~ g :g'1J III
-2-~ C:::CDE<>,Q'"
'~1;;~~e:5 ~E~ lii~
il'$-;::ucEE8ell3;
'i~16~';~!i!$~
1itOc9!O"OCft:l4ncaCO
=15~m_C=4)COc::C1;:;
is'00.thi'--~=oC I
~.g g>~E]g='O'$~~
~ ,~:s E ~,-8 ~ :g :g 2 ~ em
i=ctJ~';)'g;;:)g~Q)
;V 51!!!! ::g<>'E Q> c;'S"8
Q. <> 0 t: .5 <II .;; c..l:I ()
l-
~
f/)
UJ
0::
::l
f/)
o
...J
Q
f/)
Ci
"0 <Ii
., <I)
10 <I)
~ ;;
0. ..s
8 <Ii
.~ .8
- E
4) (U
.:::. E
'0 !2"
o =
0" ~
~:g 0
~~ "i.ij
OE 0
d E- ~B
U)c cac:::' ~
i5 ci ..
~:E "'8
Z ~ :; ~
-<< lU >-,
S:2.eo.Q::;
... '" c: i,~
Do o..jt 3:::::
~ 8^g g-g
:=S2::::
eQ)Q)~
8.= ~..
8~':~
maCe;)
.!!gg~
E u ~"i
~ c'" .
=,2 <I) ~
~== t:
: .~ i ai
:; ~~ a.
:::: 0--
0>
::
'0
'"
c
'"
::E
;&
i5
r-
E
~
~
~
c
Ql
<Il
'"
Ql
c:::
'i
.is
~
,g!
;s~
10 .~
o~
.. '"
~~
~~
(J)'-
~~
-E~
<V-
is.
m...
~8
<'C':.::::
::;c.
-"'-
"''''
.;;'"
...c
4>-
",.c
~'j
'0.9-
;:>.c
.0'"
"
=0
(g:.=
]I.!!l
~!!
<.;
,Q
c:
i5
::E
0>
<::
.~
::
'"
::E
;&
Q;
r-
:2
>
'"
o
U
-'
,..j
,,;
<:>
';p
i5
0.
C
0:.
i!
8g
O::E
'"
I !
II
]1
I J
! \
I i
i
I
o
,,;
'"
'"
"
'00
;:l
.Q
~
.~
.r:.
Ie
~
1:
III
0.
r:::
.2
10
~
8
'"
Sg
:;:~
"'''
:='2
c::: '"
g~
~j
4.1 f!
';;0
_Eo
=g
Q;.S
.c"
.x::l
l ~~
l.c.-
!~O
<Ii
j
E
1 E
~e !
uO 8
~:i ~
UJco~ 1i
0:: E'w _
~.gil o~
g;;E :g:Jl
<.:Ie-=0>~8
~~ ci.C c:..
Q'5:E~"::
0::.'" e=';;"'"
~~~.g~i
~~~~-gii
OoQ.",3:~
~~gjg~
<<. Cb= a.S
~ ~i~ ~~
o ~. '" .,
0::"'" 8 g =~
CL-€tO~~.9
~.=,~ ~:
~ ~ ~~,
~~~8.~
.!!!~$~o.
:5~~Ql~
~ e ~:S ~
-!Q.8~~
g~.~~':::
u===.,.:
'E
{J)
<(
'"
c:::
S
.c
10
:.:
'"
~
dl
=
c:::
o
-,
<(
.,
.!:
:;;
.;;
III
:.:
..,
.;;
E
(f)
....
l:>
Q.
o
0;
"
OIl
a..
Q;
J:>
E
0>
~.'"
st.
~~~ a1
..'~ E g
~~cn -:
<:,PJ: <:
;;;~~g?
~ ttlO';::.~
~~~~~
l!ia:cf~&
~g-g
~~-5 ~
g2 ~.~
"Cc4)~
;.2:u
e '3 ~:5
S'a,;; a
.!!! g. 8. 'Sl
.54>"0:;
lV-.t:. c"O
"'-COlD
~~ ~n
'0 _._ l:/)
E ~~~-~
~~.g~
Om"-....
~~;.~
~~;e~~
EBg~!
-E ~ ~g g
.- 0 4) _ Q.
G)C-""cn
=o'i';~
~ :g. -: 10 .5
-!l1 g>~l! 7,
~!'ia lI>.5! .'
.,CQlc.uq
oo.cE2....J
:: ~g~~~
Z....;.D. 4)'- It)
Q~ ~:g~'~
~..,,g"o
<.:1",,<1>-
_,5 CD= ~Q"
~~~5'Eiii ~\ \'~
ffig ~ g, 8 8 :>. ~ - ! 0
<.:I _ III Vi '" 0 co <:0::
~
g
'"
VI
OIl
"
'jj;
::>
.c
-g
~
E'B
~ m
0",
- '"
~g
~~
.g~
.!'5
::",
~:::
"'<t
0.-
(0.....
~ ~
ce;.;:::
.r:.c.
-Q.
"'..
.;;.,
~=
g;.:::
~n
.so.
Ut --
::>.c
J:>"
~~
-..
.!! "ii
...I~
","
'"
.,
c:::
'w
::l
,Q
g
'"
0:
:2
t?
OIl
"
1:
'"
Q.
r:::
.2
'E
o
c.
8
III
.....
o
:!:c
.ga-9
"''i
!.!'i
~~
~o i~
~il 12
2~ -
c.l:; l~
ell"- _
= 8 oS
S!~ i
.!: :
u~ ~
~o ..
<.:I 0 J,.:
I..
x ..
.~~~
0",_
~~;
?~ ~
t;.~ 4l>
$ ~
'"
i
"
5
v
!
I
~
~~ ~
It:_~
pi>
..::!
gf~
t.)~'::
'"
OCEAN PROPERTIES.L.LC
Agenda Iterris1S,16,.8t.17
P~g~'1~
l-
Z
LU
:E
LU
~
l-
(J'J
LU
a:::
::>
(J'J
o
.....I
o
(J'J
B
-g~
a.. a
",0
~<l.>
~!E e
~~'j
"'0 ~
.?! ~.",
2: 'Q) .'Ii
~~.~
11>21:
~::i:
tI) ~= gr
W_o"'"
a::'j;-C:
::I_iS
.~ ~~~
... >= -
~2g8
o 1; '5 -.~
...J:5.a41-
~ ;Ii!'~
o:.=.l!l
-",Bg
!::C(JftI_
g~~~ ~
<.D41",...
.....0'"
O:lu~
e~'~~
~ 8.=~
~~!~
8'0 'i'fi
-s - C'Gi
~. :l'i~
0:1<..._
~ i Iii,;
1i j.~ 8
-;;- c:i:.
::::i.S1 :l 51
u
c.:
~ .,
~ .~
all 'g
" ..
Ii 0
.c <(
<( all
.: 1(
.g is
:; ,::
~(.)w
~Q..R~
~.<=
~.~~
S!
:OJ-=:_
t:_ 0
00
ig~
j(:5
J!l!~
,!? oii
~ IOE
ft;ie
~=~
o..GlO
:;: 15"
~r:-
c-tI
S goj
.!!7i-c
!;c
<:I....
~8.3!
c:..,S
~Cll(l)
Eii~
~9~0
..t::. DI'J ~ .
.. s c: '
.~ o8~
]i ..a-~ '?
eg e~
~.l:: 8:;'
~~4iC>
'= 0='&
.g..a-gu
~i~~
ll.l'- 0
...."....J
d:5~~
.:: ~ &.$
ogo:l
e.'",,]j
Sg.s
C ll.l
!~o tci
,5 ,90 if' ~,..~ >
;;; ~; :g 8 '0. ti
:; ;;"O~5O'JE::E'<
,-t=:l~4)""'::;::tGCOifJ:~
f>>:9) a=~..!: i C) ~ ~o;
= Ill".::; 5 ~ E .. -... ~
0':::'; "'..'::2:-_ ~ ",]is
ci.,~ e ,- fI':l ;,;;. 0 C 0: t) e
~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ i .~ ~ .~:a
c.,u~-,(tJ:o.Qu:.;:_
.2 ~ 'tQ == f.~' c cu t'Gi......2
]i ~ -;,!ES <~ g= Gl ~'E
o---..--(J' ~.... '~ti 0
-~>.o<ll:::lGlS,c~(,,)
,=.0"", .u..c Cl.:g '"S!E
..c>c:2:-...-g~":llUGl
c 5 ., ~ .91,;' cu' ~ os: IS E
;_=G:5-=tQo~~E
E~~; ~li~~:G'~ ~
:~!~~a:: ii-g e 0(3
i3..cC)~-1O;O=m
aJ!l:G=-.;o'E..!!!~~u
.- ,".J::: c: "'. J1 '". 0> C>'~ 0
(6'XO'-'c:C- C ><t)-l:
~~.! !~Bl~l~j~
,. -:t ';("0=-
~ ~ ,E ~ i ~l 6 ~ .4) 0 S
iCl.-Cll!l>~c:..O'.S
:E~.5~~oo. .!!lI)
:::"-=ZClle"~::lc>
.~g~~o~. 8.~lE-e~
!!It,9-8::e ~ 8g~'..
J3 - i .. ~ ~ <oE ell.!!!
"'~-o<:tc;..:!!!",e=..:
~.!lI~o!'Jo"041" ....c:~
\:0.:2 l!l_e';;4lIll_Gl..,
=~!!~;;tsQ)';;O.!N
:c ~ ~?:E. !-:5="Ci"ii-N
N ~ ~ ;;:: 4J.cp 4) .. .~ 2 i ~
c:g al g'il "0 ~:::l i ~ ll)
; 5 ~; '5-5~'41 c;.~"8
c. <.> " E <> ..5 <II = Q..c (.)
l-
Z
LU
:E
LU
~
l-
rJ'J
LU
c:::
::>
en
o
.....I
()
(J'J
o
'i ,,;
i<i ~
- ..
8. .5
8 i
s '"
c: .c
::> E
6 <II
= E
o ~
Q ~
vi
w'" 0
~.~ a
tll" -
oil .;;
c:3 E ~B
.. fn~ g.~
Cia: c:.,
I'-:E ~~
~ i >-'::
Uc:".o_
:; i!jgo", Yl
Q.o.'~~-::
~ c:'==~
g"g,s;:
E Q .os.
~i ~ ~
o Q-._
-"!
: ~~ .
E8~~
l?j"'OIl .
ag.!~
0.. to -.=
:~~i
= 2>~ c.
=o~
go
:;,
..
~
;::
i:-
lii
r-
E
.$
~
l.:
.!
c:
..
:E
Ii!'
'5>
'"
c:
..
;::
~
C>
I'-
",
'j;
III
o
d
...i
-t
'"
.2
't:
8-
e
~~
~E
u<l>
0::
~
'E
e
'"
....
C>
"
.;;;
::>
n
'i
i
~a~
Q~
-~ f5
~~
c;~
~.ii
~~
!::::
!S-
:'E
i;g
&: 0-
_0.
....
So
...r:
:~
:rri
,S: Co
~i
c
1ig
-'"
~E
'"
<;
oi
fA
.,
"
';;
.5
.Ii
.8
E
lii .,
J: E
-::'0 w
~o B
'a,,; s
W ~~ 0
~~'~ 7e
tllol::.o 0'8
g~g ~!
~~~.'~~~
O~~~ "'':::
a::.,e-=-
"'~ ~li' ~.:;;.
ZQ;JC-c-'::::
~ii="8ti
OQQ..,:t:~
>- ::"eal.2-
I'- 1:: .2 1>.:E ~
a:: t~ E "
~~28~~
0.... i: - '" 113
a::'-gfi:':.c
Q.~;:..o
a:;Spi
~ ':"-20 (/1-
~ ~ 2>~ ~
Ql:1:0=i:
.; ~'i E"[
,c'l:eCl.-
;8.o~$
~ 2' 0.__
-o.~';)~
~ .! .~ :::J S
8;g..;
E
'5
o
a::
en
"
E
<tl
:.::
a;
.t::>
"
:$
::i:
Q'J ~...,
c :--.,
'g>~
S ~
;:::,
z:.~
~ ~-
..
,,%
"S; -
8~
,g="O
",-g2
~-;;'~.~
g~ !~
"0 c:!!!,c
S~=.9
g .~ .~:g
::= 0...;; Q.
11.1 o...O"Q
- = 0.2
.5 -~"Q, :)
e.cc"t:l
- - <G III
.! i g>5
"0_._ w
~~~!.s
E~'8g
81.2.2
a~..!!! Ci. .
~ 5a ~~\
l: .- .. <II ""
=~a"C"
,g""o.o'ti
r:;' ""C'? <C
v_O~_Q.
O'c;....'COm
=o~;;s
~:g.-:'5S i
~8,~~~ i
-- CD .... G)O ~~_\l
'8;: l ~~~:m'^1
-~.E;:~-'
0% of ~ .~; .~~,.... ·
,c _.J:>.c: 'l: a
j::--"-'-.:. ,,'/
<OO.S!"'oo. .!I'
!:d~ -g.! ~a: ~
!: e '"5 ~~ 'c .~
1'-c>'00_", ~,,:
a:: 1! ll.l e 0 ~ ....'.
W :> '5.2' 1$ " ;;. ~\'"
u_.,.. ..OCD<"
e
, $I
\~~
\.:. '::'0
......11
^' .....
l
a;
'"
'"
III
C
"Jj;
::>
D
a:
.~
i;~
";~
l5~
~ 8
~q)
.- :::
~~
~~
i;b
!~
!~
..""
~~
"'=
.J::: Q.
_0.
11l<;
=<>
:&O..c.:
..-
~:€
tll3:
vE c..
B~
"
'iij,g
-~
~.-
-(,}
.......
.;
'"
'"
c:
";;;
E
g
0;::
a:
:E
..
~
"
t
'"
Q.
e-
.9
"$
8-
8
<\l
...
~c:
.~.2
...,ii
~~.
;;:"
;e,
to
~j
~ !
i~
;~
~'e
",:l
,c~
~l
ro
06
!.""
:'iI
'0
I!
i.l!
i&
im
.'"
;.-
;)0(
,.,
:..
I~
1(1)
r--
l.a.
,..
j
'5
<>
a::
.Q
Cl>E
i~
c;.g
:.::'"
~!.::';l;
~~s
l\)o.- "..
~~i
'!~;:
'9 ~
"
0:
I
"
~
t.i
:E
e?
'"
c:
t::
!
r::'
.2
'!
~
8
'"
~c
~~
.....
:: 'c
eo
,g~
0..'10
~~
Q!
=8-
E 8
~LE
,cc;
x:J
g~
Do
o
'"
x
IE
I~
"
c.
..
"
..
:;
~
~
j
?
~ ~
i~~
n~
~::~
s "
,,: ~~
6J:.~
OCEAN PRE),PERTIESILC
Agenda Itelrists,16,!17
.'Pf:i.g....e,u19
. ,:::.'.:, ,'"":'.:--~"::--"~:. .",
.
(:C"CC
" ~,-,.
I-
Z
W
~
W
I-
~
(/')
w
cr
::>
(J)
o
...J
Q
(/')
B
~~
c,.2
<>>u
!S_
,.- ftI.
€'@ i
3..-
ttJ.-'C
ltlOC
Olol)t;:
'~~ e
~i.~
(jP~
.:g a. Q)
> '"
O'J e~ g>
IIJ;O 'S
0::'- - -
;:) ~i g
~ 0"'" 8
..J ~,g '"
()'CO-tn
!!?.cgS
Q1ii-'~
...J~5~ -=
~ '" g>~
o !~,,!!
Ehl~~
g"!~.a ~
<""0 ...
~ ~.~ 5
~'t:2:ll>
th.~~
C:ce-
~ C. Cj ::!
8i~fi
C;;ii'
~8e$
~g- .; t,i
_'-.0(1)
~1J~'~
:i$ :u
d
0.:
"
fD -=_
c::_ 0
00_
=c,g
i!s'E
;;: _ 0
.. &0
.~o~
~~:E
(0 ~:E
;::-~
a.!? 0
:<:00
~Elii
o o:U
-- C. 0
~':~
!~c::
.."'''
'", :g S!
C c.",
cnccCi5
~~~
tQ. -g en
';;;: G) f'
'0 c c:: .
g~go
-;.;:i4'Q ..
<<i2':-'loo.(\")
'!g .~~
~<6 8 :
,- ,c:: :t,.. 4)
.-a~ ~ '8
.g~g (,)
!g~>..
r::....o
e'ti _...;
ecIct'o
f'-,g l;<.!!l
- cuc,
o g> ~
0.,_ t
00-
u,."S
0",
;e -
,,5 v9-;iO ~
:: () .;;~q;5"";
E ~"O]J 6 &~ :s~~
....~o!:,o~~f!o"'~
! = = ~ '3 'S ot4J ~ 5 .~
~.~@:~ ~~: :-~2
Q.c~e,,- "'",., ~ '" "'c
~: ~ '5 * 15 i .~ .~ ~ ~i5
s:: cJJ U.s:::. :5 - ~.Q:z.: -
.2 fJ) {U - :~ ; c CD t; ~ -~
~,,~€t!~.~ .~~ e ~g
-~ '-":::&..!!l.:g~(,)
.=,.Qz~u...J:J, i0~C
",~c~...i~~~""
:; 0 Go' e .~ 1ii m '- .- m E
Cllc'-: lidS".;:'" 0 ~ <I> E
e';"l!G;~'li~{l~~~
> jC'-'='lflI-:'Oc:.:O
~ ~othi2:-;:)_Q)<:)
~ ~ -e ~ .~ 15 ~ i ~ ~ B
;~il~! B i"&:~,g
C)( o-J:J c<;;J: >Q)
! ~ .!- CD ..! ! .gE i~ 'g
"'"'-!;--"'!;e-'"
:t$St:~C~lo"..lS$'-~
i <i::: Ol: <II ~ - (5 ~ g
.. :c. ~,3 ~ ;So ~ ..'~ lh
~g.!:g~~~o~~2
_"".5 c 0 c o..E'\e.lh
!is o..fP"",..;: O!!'.
,Q!::C1llS;~~8~::>j
i2:-leo~4l",~..l$";
16.t!~J!~",=,cCD.t'lcS
~1l ~ :;:_S~ e,! c:'7
<:.0 ...--!l1i ",!=~;S"!
:f ~l:~El.-.=-Oln'CN
~ ~=1;~C>>>~OEQ)cm
ct!<Il",:!2-g..!!"'O!!1<l>
~cl.l>e'~<:l$:>~2i'8
~8 5 ~ 8.5:5~ &]Ju
.,;
'"
'"
0;
E
.....
Z
W
~
W
I-
~
en
w
cr
::>
en
o
-l
Q
(J)
5
""
<II
1ii
8-
l5
"
c:
C
::>
l5
&:;
'0 .,;
~ j
~ ~ '0
i'i Q
oil '0
ti@ ~'8
0"" g~
Cd c~
.....2 5~
:if'! c;
u ~._ 1;'""
~ ~g>i~
o.c!~'S
oc(g:2l!~
f:<DO~
8.;S~ ..
8~':~
:t;~
::8~.2
c: 0. ctt
5 cC .
'5.:2.! ~
a. to _ 'C:
~'E~S
;::: CD....J Co
=0>
-~ 0"':
.,;
Q;
D
e
'"
E
Q;
~
'"
::;:
~
-a,
$
;;;
::;:
~
~
""
-s;
...
Cl
d
...;
...i
of
'"
C
Cll
Q.
e
0.",
c,:;:
~E
'" '"
0::;'
~
c:.'
....I
""
C
e
~
'"
'"
1ii
.~
'"
<:
""
c~ 't)
o 8
~ ~
d:<.lW
.. 0.. e
~<:l!
$'~~
-0>
c:
'0
'"
c
'"
::E
~
..
l-
E
~
~
~
E
..
'"
..
'"
r::;
0;
::>
""
'0
'"
g
~~
~.,
0.,
- &
~.,
-- <::
"'-
'0'--
r~
~-'5
c:'"
E::
"''<t
Q.~
Q;":
~e
!II""
.co..
-Q.
"''''
:54:<
(R:
~-~
'" ::
,E Q.
;:c
.e'"
'"
iE:2
';).5
.- ..
...J~
N
5
.,;
.,
E
':r.
.5
f
'"
~
1:
Q as
.J::; E
~o ~
~o Q:
-it ~
w ,Q _~-
o::e-.. to
~..gil '0'8
g'i:E !l~
ue.!; 0. E ..
tI)~ ~ c: ~:g
Sij~~ !::
ffi~~ ~~='~
z'" ",-1;',,-
~~~~i'fi
0~,:S!~~
~t~-!'5~
~ II~i~
o_-.!!!"
0::"- 8 '" ::: l'i
Q.~", ~!!!.!:i
a>:~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ a;
~il:?;8..f
~~ie!
:c: 't: - 0. .
-8.!!2~
S! E ~= S
.!!! 0.. 8;;; ~
~! ,,:::;.5
8;'g~
<:>
is
~
<:
C
c
<:
siai-g
;]'50':
8 gg'i"E
;~;j
; .2 .:; .0
o m ~:3
2.1<.5' '"
_'E.-;;Q.
.!e g 8.j
J; Q)'''O :J
~= fi''g
.c '" O>~
-c:
'-"--','
'~-E~~
~~~s
8"'--
g,~.Q
g-~ Q.
~ 5B!e..~
EBg~l
~ t5 ig ~
-QO_o.
~C:-'"0
:SogJ~
~- :e. -: 'i ,!::
~g-~~g
t:.....~Itl;
8 ~~~!:l
::~.g;-~
z..;J:>",--
o ~ a:s- 1
i=<;.g~~
c <ll-
(J &"C.:; a
!!; ! ~ -; .5 "{~"
~.gaJO~S
wc.=Cg --'"
" :> ".S!' 0 ~ '" \
__u}fh~'_<'
h
~
e
<:>
'"
'"
'"
C
'iii
"
.0
s:
9
~e
o~
-2:- fl
.S! ~
~~
.g~
w_
~~
!.~
=.:..:
~ 3
01=
.co.
_0.
"" ..
=4)
~=
:#a
",'I;
ji.o.
li
~~
~ .,
:S"!
'"
<;
.0
E
Q,i. ~,
~ <
&~
~j~
~ -..
~A
~F
'"
"'Cz
.~:-g
00::
1.i
'"
.,
'"
'aD
"
.::;;
@
<.:
ci
:E.
.,
e
.5
{;;
Q.
.9
E
f
.,
...
o
:z:-
,!? g
-.,
~ ,~
'?;c
o~
~o
..""
00.,
e'S
Q.~
..~
=8
:!:Or::;
e-.-
_ c.
<:>::>
.J::;_
~o
".r:
rs
u a.
~-
I!
is
l~
!!
~!
l~
!g
I~
r-
1t1O'
'"
"
2).,
o>e
-.,
<Cz
c-
~,~
~~B
~':\h
!i"~.'
t:0
rl.~
~ .~
a; -
e:
j
~
:J
-'!-
'?;
a;
.5
a
r:.
:2
l'l
~
8
..
Be
:z::2
.~~
_c
c:...
Ji ~
Q.-
i!
C)!
;S8.
!lt8
Q.~S:
.c'"
.:..:':J
~.~
(,)0
o
x
5
E
J
~
~ ~
~~~
Hli.
~;:i
8l~
OCEAN PR0PERTIES..l..LC
Agenda Items 15, t6,~17
P@g~g()
LIJ
~
LIJ
!-
~
(IJ
LIJ
0::
::>
(IJ
o
...J
Q
(IJ
5
'"5";
(U .....
0..3
"'<J
0'"
~~1i
j~~
;o'g
:'-' cc=
ee.;
"''' '"
"">.:~
~~~
> !Ii '"
cn.:?~~
1IJ ~o;;
~~';5
Cl)o~s
O.,E=
...i:>= ..
~~ggj
is'l;''5~
;t;.Q1J5
:z l:l g>-
o ,~:o~
E~-fi i._
g~~.s ti
<.00";'"
ls~8;
.. ,..- ...
o<=~!
'lS9!",~
ell o.n-
i c.5~
0'''0 iotJ.c
c"eoO
e--,'~
~I=~
Q::l__
~:r.;..
=~8e
~~.~.~
:is:~
u
c..:
'"
Q:=-
1:_ 0
00_
e __.u
(tiC';:
-"'I:
~!:!o
.!l!~
,~o S
S~ E
25~
- :>
Q,QO
:cot!)
""Et;
J g.g
=A_-J
ii~
ftl; !l" .~
:..~s
c: Q.~
~0U;
~~t
'Q. "'ii (I).
1: V) I
~ ,i~~
~bii~
.l!~-C')
! ~ e,N
~:5 8;;'
.-. c .... 4):
~~~&
.g 2:0 g ()
~i~~
",._ 0
-"Q ........:
~5~:t
:;:: 0 Q)
.. a;;;
~:!S OJ;
8~E
00
~..- ..
.5 ,g..~~; >
t: (t) ~-~8 ri
~ C :Q) c:- (1),_ ......1;;<{
~ m ~ i .Q g ~~ 5 ~ J9
l:Jq)OJ;~,~~Q~aU)
:5~C:~oeE0""'=~
o2:0=",J::~~~...l!B
,:9-';;:; g 'f; ~ -~ 0 ,S,i .;!?.E
{; i gt: Gi ~ 0 i ~:~ ~o
c0' s;.-rtto.Qt5<--
g:~;;5~g,g..-g~
~.5 ;:;"o'~ ~:: ! :~ g
~ ~~o:.a ~ii~ ~'::
~ .0.: . I/J..Q ::
",:g~~..i~:g:i<.l'"
mOVJi~~~o'~:~
E'Z~ - e= 4) t4 QJ~ ai
'Q.i~~: ~=g~ ~ ~
;c i ,:, 0 Ii f!t) ~2 .... ~-C)
~UJ~~~o~i~oi
g,]j~';;;~~1io.i$~
~'so';:~c>~~o!-o
~_.. o~..::u;:s ~Q.~ '"
>"'= -'-11>5<1:-'"
~=.5 i~()~G10S
,~,g:~ ~~ ~ coo ~"'.f1
{t},~ !=.c:;.- ~ c QI)';SV'"
gjcsellg>li;oll/<<lg
c.2 C--,- Q,ES.o",
'~ti'Q.gC: e.E E 0 ~.4:
.E'(p'- ;:E~Ql!!;;"
- '&;a2 0 ~ III U E. Qt, ~
i ~~o ~ii:n! to!? j;...:
'l;"'~.!!!o't>iI>llI"",,,,o
;$::2 ~ :'c~5= e1 c:~
:;:~ '.-<I>'l:l'l;G>-O.cN
:r.'::~~E ~==Q"i~N
N .!=~&"lDt4Q)Eg@
iE 4) ~~'-g$ ~ ~~ 4l
;S:~:g51l'E!!!<<;0"8
Q.l:$ 0 _ u.= III = Cl..Q 0
n
-0 vi
<I> 0
1i S
~ g
g ~
'c 15
'" E
4> 4)
~ ~
o a;
.,; ~
~ i 0
~'ill 'l;;
o..c '0
....;1_ ~~
U e E'"
U)~ ~~
is ci .....
- (J) ~
~'i =c
< a; ""c
t,)C:,..Q~
::;i~i~
t: ....3: t; ::
< 5~~= g
=..e~::
!1bQ)~
&:E H
"'s ~ ~
3.!!-_
eo. Q" c;: ~
~~g:
'E u ~~
~ c: '" ""
:ag,gQi
:Q.t1S-e
:'E!i
s ~~ Q.
~'o__
C>
=
'63
..
<:
'"
::E
~
a;
I-
,EO
~
~
~
E
'"
::E
'"
c
'0,
'"
c
III
::E
~
~
:2
>
..
o
U
...i
...i
<A
'!
<l>
Q,
2
o..~
c,,8
"'E
8~
!-
Z
.W
':i:
LIJ
!-
~
rIi
LIJ
0::
::>
CI)
o
...J
Q
fJ')
5
!
<I:l
c
.Qi
~
..
ell
iii
'.,
<:I
'"
~
<I:l
C 1(
~ ~
s '" .
CXl~W
.; II: i
1~=
~::E~
~
C
41
..
'"
G>
c
"!
.5
'i
~
lS~
~ .~
o~
-~s
Ill'"
"i~
.g~
..-
Eg
0_
[~
","-'
~ 8
m=
.=. Q.
-Q.
"'..
€Cl>
0=
OJ _
i~
.50.
~.;::
]~
~g
.;~
.......
N
~
.,;
!l
t:
"t;
"
.0
~
<i
:E
".
~
'"
'C
=
Q.
.:
.2
E
<:I
Q,
<5
<.l
'"
~c:
:t!
J!,~
'Ea
g~
8:1
"0_
ae
.&:0
-Q,
illS
:;,E
::.c
.:Jt,' .::J
11
015
o
.;
a;
.Cl
E
'"
E
<;
.r::.
~o ui
.g ~ 8
~': ~
~;:,~ 15
~~~ ~~
g<Ie ..:JJ
I.) E:!", c;,~ ~
~~ci,EC'Q)
~~ ~.~~,;;
~.~ ~s~~
~.:::~.~'Q~
o~Q.;~~
~~g~15S
0: Q,) .-.0;._
w Cl. 'l; E!1 "
1L~&8E~
~"'ls.:l!ll
1L~~~!2
~!!!.!:!3:"
-,,-CO";
Q~"'~(j;
g~~GI.f
"'0-08'''
1~~Q.C:
......=_oe0
~ 15- &€ ~
.eo.o t; q;
~~>'E~.5
8;:g.,.;
-g,
o
u:.
Ii
c
o
..,
j
'"
<;
:i: .~'''''
.0) ,
c ~
'i'~
c ...
~ ~
~~~
(j;~
1-..
:2'"
:>~
tj~
2a;'i
5~"5 en
gIll".,$;
~~.! ~
-g5,~..c
:~.;~
.$~~ a
.!! g. &. ~
J=o~:;
;).cC"O
! i :-5
i~..~. :
::"Om.t=
~j~:9
o GI)........
uooo
g a::;'a,
.- C:.Q q)]1;'.
-;~Q"~:.& j,~
E e 8. 'l::l : 1&
~~~~~ j~
--oQ_Q. 1~
:CD c ..... . U) ]:;
=~.i~~ h:
!~-:ii'.S ~~
- II '" ~ .. ,1!;;
~!H~~ . . 5."" I;.
~ c: ~ 8-'g c.j~ I~
_ 8.'~ a ;; ~ ~~li
~ i.t~i ft;< J:>;'I!
i=;5~of ,~
~ii""~"" ~
u::..j- . '. ,0
- - :>c: .,,,'i~
~~1l.~8l'J;\ '",.~
w :> "5 .!2' U 08 '" "''. '1'0
1.)._ "'''' '" CXl"" '. 0:,
~
c:
(,"I-
fIl
..
'"
c
'iii
::;"
"Q
"
.s
,.~
fE~
Q. ...
0' ~
-~ f;
"" <Il
~:~
~.~
~"5
4J~
i~
<;1-
~ i
~,g
.&:0.
_0.
ftJ,('D
=;l
"'=
'" -
"'-
..,:
~. ~
.'5: c.
:If.l';::
.E$
ij,g
~~
........
I. i
. ~iti
:::l
"Q
I.:
Q.
:~
e
llJ
c
'C
.,
Q.
r:
,2
'l;
8-
8
'"
~
o
:t c:
,!!, 9
~ii
C>~
~a
I, ~~
IV"
, C. IV
i e ii
I 0. ,"""
!f
1 rg
'I.. ~~
. t3 (5.
Ix
I.,
l~
;,S
;j
I,}
~*'
,'''
!:?
l~
i!
;-.0.
;..
.'
-0
>-
.2..
....e
.",
a::z
C'.c
o.~
"""),Q,.
~~~
~ 1i ~~
~~~
~.~;
~- :.,
H ~
~ -
'i
?
J
N
s
J
t
~t'~
~'5ii
"-'2
~;'t
o l(..
i..:u\.~
OCEAN PR~J!?ERTIES~LC
Agenda ItetnS15,.16,i~17
. ..J?QQ!?l
ue
~ -
0.'=
o "'
.,'"
~:5"
~ ~l
,,_ T.Z
IV ('; 'r;.
.~ ~ ~
'2: a; .,;
~n,~
~ [~
> 0
0E~g>
Ill~O'"
!S~;g
tn""'.sO
OOE"
...J ~= ~
OOl-0
!!!:;g~
o Ol - .2:
..I=..5~
:! ;: 2'-
o :~,~
E~-5:i,>
g1~~m
<I(~~-=
~ ;.,~ ~
O':"~~
tl8.5:~
~ K~!?
8-g~13
i=t;~
O,,~S
~ ~ g';
~ ~2: .~
:i3:~
c;j
0.:
~ !i
.... .!!!
~ g
~ ~
<0( oll
(5 1$
~ ~
S<.;!ui
enD: ~
~<o(o:
~~.~
.,
(t=_
c:_ 0
00_
~C~
,.t:55
~""(j
2l 8._
.~O i
~"" E
aiie
=-5~
0."0
:coO
~E..
g g>~
m- -I
'ii=-g
;;:g",
'", ~.s
- -..
m:5a;
E .. ~
. J::0
0.'"
:.c 0',
to c:: C '
5,~go
~~eM
~~ ~N
2:-.= 0'"
Ci~(,)<D'>
.- c; ~ III
i:'~"O
.J:tOOO
::J~c:O
~~~,~
",._ 0
..."Q'lo...."..:
~a~~
~ ;. 0.-0
,- m: 0.-
o 2'!
~~~~
c.>"':::
g e
~t'Q.... 0
,,;: .g.1J.'I~O >
~,~, i5;:Sc.t:3
.::: ~"O.8 a 8,~ ~:c<
-:=oCtJ. -=mCOUl0
Q1' U) CD(;J2~'; Q)' $ Ceo
=-~t:~5!EItJ'!.g~
0;'= "'..: >o~~. .,iE!!Z
=i:= e.!! fJJ. S 0 c ~ 1U t:
:E C C ~ ti i ~ ~. ~~ ~:a
~: 8~=., o.o~~=_
.QfIJ<<I-~~,c4:tt'll'~~
j ~;;-iE.2^5 0;5 q) ~c
C)' ,- -,- 0 d} ~ ", ii' 0
.~~~O~~.& ~i~ ~~
"'91;:~.;al~g;~u"
~6:~~j=o:'~~g
--.. -is --
e;~ w ~ =,1~~"~ ~
~g. ~ .~ ~ = ~::~, 5 ~ ~ ~
~ 3;.c e;l ~o-a; o'~1S
g~Cii:'0 ,~'~;!~<.>
~,,~=,= = 8 ~ ~Q)"""....o
<Qi x 0 .- - t: -.... >- l;t
E~C)Q;~2.gE~.!~
>- ~ ':5 ~ - ,~ w E E- t.s
:g=..5o~~c84>l)~
C> 0.- Ol ~ Cll' r:::: ... 0: . ~-
:;: '" .5 2J::; 0 0 .!!? (/)
: ",l!!'5" Ole! c: g::;lCb
~~~.:~5 8.E~.Q~
~G"o. g,g ,5 " ~ oS'o
"~'-"c;EE !I?::>"
..o-{;1lI0QjCll ego!!!
"g2:-c;0<.l1il"'i!:",~'$"";
~,e~~o"C!=(i)cei~
::.:2 ~,tr.tc,s:-~! c: c)("")
=,0 A~'c>,,=ltl'_O.r:;~
~ .g ~,b E ! = :; '0 (6 ~ eN
N!=~&m4Jti/S)g4)""
::e""'~-g~~o9!..
~c~ig~~Qi~"8
0.80 E ..,.=..: c..cU
!-
Z
w
:E
w
f-
~
(/)
w
a::
::l
(/)
"0
..
~
o
0.
o
o
::
.=
::>
",'
~
'"
g
'"
Q;
.D
E
$I
::
j
"5 fIi
o 8
III ~ :g
',!S ~ ..
8~ 0
~.~'~f
c~ ~~
~'~, s~
c i>> >0-
tJ c: ~...c~
::j'~ g'--o ,t;;
~o.'~~""
:: c;-.2.2 ii
.g:gs~
!Q)tU~
8.= g..
8~'::~
c;ai~
.!!! !5,g ti
'E 0 ~"i
~c<J:.;
: ,,2 fP Q)
:~'i= c
<<J.!::! U; 't:
1;::J !
- :9' .
-o~
0>
C
"S,
'"
c
'"
:;
?:
~
E
~
~
};
;:
..
'"
'"
"
c;
.;;;
'"
.Q
j
.~
e~
..~
o~
~ ..
~15
,- ::
:2lt:;-
.g:~
!"5
c;",
~:t:
..-q:
0.-
..""'
::
~g
J::o.
_a.
'" 10
;.s
=~
.. ;;:
;5 a.
~~
..0 :0
c:
~g
-10
'II -
.- \tl
....-
Ii;
~
~
:;
CI'>
c
'f
c:
CIl
:;
~
4;
I-
:2
,.
<II
o
c;j
..i
..i
.;
"
'E
II>
0.
e-
a.-
c;Z
5g
0:;
N
c
..
'"
II>
c;
'..
'"
.t:>
E
.;;
<i
.:2:
l!!
~
't:
..
C.
e
.2
;;;
~
8
co
8c
~g
"'~
:: 'c
c: CIl
~g'
~~
..!
':::0
-0.
';8
j.g
..."
" ~
'" '"
.c:.t::
Uo
o
",'
.&
Oi g
J:: E
~o vi
,~o g
-.:t.. IE
wg.~ 0
a::e;E 'ii
~~] 'O'B
o Q')r;
<=C "''''
5l!!l:E~
~~ ~.g>~ g
0'6'-;;"'"
!I!(I)';;'.2..s~
~.~~~~!
~si~"O';;
OoQ.-~~
.tDo-
~~cj=~
0:: & ~c...e ':
~~o~~~
~"" $C:'~]
Q.'t~~~2
O.!!.!:!3:"
~_t:.O,tA
11~2>~!
~~~8.~
.~ ~~ 2 Q.
:6Q~:~
s8-&=~
S!i3.8~-"
~~c::S.5
8;;;"~~
..
"
;::.
e>
c
'S
:J
Q
:0
'"
g
>
Q)
c::
:;
'e
rJ')
Q)
0.
o
~
Q)
Q"
III
f3.
'0
$
..
'"
;::.
~
'g
<J)
III
0.
o
<is
c;
III
a.
, t:i
~5~ .c
~.8'5~ ~ ~
g ~ g'.:: ::.,~ u;
m.~l-..a'3 a'1-2
~ c Ill.<: co..;
ca S :; .g ~~.~ ~
~ .:~ .~:g ~ ~~ E
~a'!ii Q. :Ei fI)
.!l ft &. i ~~} ==
.E4>'t'S .!e
~::;~al ''''
~ ~ g>13 ~ ~
i :::>2_ ~ ~
<<;:"'O~~ 0,,-
~iii \_
-I i.~ '~~.~" ,~ ~
E~g ~ ~ .. g>
!a te 0..0 (,) .'S
~S-o.~~~ ::J
o C looo Ct,I ~
=oij;s?~
23--:.16-
-l'lg>~'"
~!'i Ill~
8g.!~2
:: g-g ~~
Z ,.J ,052 ~ ':-
O~a..:i5'"~
;::-....~'-
<C(~$:-g
2S~:;:~
~ f!! :; ,'C'-
~~alo'E
ffic:;c;8
O-=~'~~
8.~
0"
15%
~:s
a.a
Z.
E
Q
'"
..
Q
c:
'0;
'"
.::.
al
i
~~
-",
0.,
-2:'g
"'-
~~
i~
"'-'5
2~
~s.
e-
g18
"'=
..c: Q.
_0.
..'"
=<>>
..J::
Q-
",J::
8l'i
,;;; c..
"'.-
"'.<:
.0'"
c
~.g
-'"
.. -
-4>
....~
"f
'"
III
::
'iii
:0
.0
~
Ii
.:E
l!!
'"
c
't:
'"
Co
C
.12
~
<>
0.
8
'"
....
o
C:.:;
.!L2
t!
~'c
0::;'
~o
(I)~
0. III
0..
~8.
=0
'"
.- c:
~'=
",,,,
J::_
~~
,!o
Uo
><
,. ..
:!:
~
I~
~It
>t
..
r;
..
..
<I)
'"
i~~
~~?
~&i
t'"~--~
. .
~ ;J:
'"
&
i
'-'
I
."
~
.l!'
~ ;
~~~
1i-oi.
h~
!~>
. .
.."
N
OCEAN PRC)PERTIESI..LC
Agenda Ite~s15,16,~t7
Pag~.?2
Item #15, 16 & 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Change of Zoning District Classification from R-1O (SD)
Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings
Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of
North Oliver Drive
4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive
2209,2213,2217,2216,2208 North Oliver Drive
District 4
Bayside
May 10, 2006
REGULAR
Joseph Strange: The next items are Items #15, 16 & 17, Ocean Properties, L.L.c. An
Ordinance Upon Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.c. for a Change of Zoning District
Classification from R-1O (SD) Residential District to Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use
District on property located at 4856, 4840, 4848, 4832 Shore Drive and 2209,2213,2217,
2216,2208 North Oliver Road with five proffers; an Ordinance upon Application of
Ocean Properties, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings on
property located 4856, 4840, 4848,4832 Shore Drive and 2209,2213,2217,2216,2208
North Oliver Road, District 4, Bayside with seven conditions; and an Ordinance upon
Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.c. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment
of a portion of North Oliver Drive, beginning on the north side of Shore Drive and
extending to its terminus at Lake Bradford, District 4, Bayside with six conditions.
Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon, we're going to give you five minutes because were going to
take a five minutes recess. We will reconvene in five minutes right at 3:00 o'clock.
LATER
Barry Knight: I'd like to call the Virginia Beach Planning Commission meeting out of
recess and back to order. Mr. Secretary.
Joseph Strange: We already read Items #15, 16, and 17. Would the applicant please step
forward?
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I apologize for having that up
there (presentation board), as it is so large. I think it is the only way it could actually be
seen. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach attorney, and I
come before you this afternoon representing Ocean Properties on this conditional
rezoning application for the proposed Lake Bradford condominium. This proposal
represents an assemblage of nine parcels of property, four of which abut Shore Drive, and
two of which have driveways out on Shore Drive. The other two have driveways onto
North Oliver. You all heard this application back in January 2006. I promise that I will
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 2
not exceed the ten minutes because you all heard this already before. Certainly, we agree
with your staff evaluation with regard to this application. Back in January, however, we
heard from some opposition, some of which we had an opportunity to speak with in brief.
And a lot of it had to do, in my estimation, with heightened feelings along the Shore
Drive corridor with regard to pedestrian fatalities that have been suffered in the summer
and fall, and to those issues relating to improvements to Shore Drive to make it more
pedestrian friendly, to include curbing and things of that nature. We were fortunately
able to obtain contract extensions with all the parties, many of them who are here today,
to permit the Shore Drive Safety Task Force to complete their task. In the meantime,
after meeting with the Shore Drive Advisory Committee, and my clients having met with
the Shore Drive Coalition, we have made some changes to the plan, which are outlined in
your staff evaluation. We have reduced the number of units from 86 to 77 units. We
have also reduced the height. That height has been reduced to 35 feet in height within
100 feet of Shore Drive and our western property line. The eastern portion of the
property features a four-story section, with parking being the first floor, and three floors
of residences above. The maximum height to the peak of the roof on that side is 63 feet.
While we have reduced the number of units from 86 to 77, we remain constant with 178
parking spaces. The Code would only require 141 parking spaces. The plan that is in
your packages didn't change the parking space requirement even though the number of
units went" down. So that is an inaccuracy in there. The number of parking spaces
required for 77 units is 141. We provided a 178. That is 37 more than is required. That
was one of the concerns that I heard at the Shore Drive Advisory Committee. We
certainly far, far exceed the requirements as far as parking is concerned. You know there
is a nice pool inside the courtyard of the proposed structure. The building involves
condominiums that would have two bedroom, and some three bedroom, but they only will
have a market in the professional non-family sector. That is why you see the school
generation numbers as they are, and that is why there is basically no change. We agreed
to do what the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and staff have asked us to do with
regard to closing the existing entrance to the North Oliver Drive from Shore Drive. We
will eliminate the left-in and the left-out on Shore Drive. As you are all aware, we think
this is a very good mixed-use redevelopment opportunity. And mostimportantly -- and
this is why I put this up here -- Shore Drive from Independence Boulevard on the west,
actually a little bit beyond Independence Boulevard on the west, all the way to Great
Neck Road and slightly beyond North Great Neck Road on the east. Within that well
over 4% mile section of Shore Drive, the only single-family residential zoning and land
use that exists on Shore Drive, other than this subject site is Baylake Pines and Bayville
Farm, and Bayville Park. Everything else is multi-family or commercial. There isn't any
other single-family zoning and land use in place except Baylake Pines and Bayville Farm
across from it. By contrast, Baylake Pines and Bayville Farms are clearly segregated by
Lake Joyce on the west, Baylake Crab Creek on the east. And you call it a wonderful area
and section of Shore Drive. This piece of property, this assemblage of parcels are on the
east adjoined by Conditional B-2 zoning with a Wawa, with a Conditional Use Permit,
and on the west by multi-family development, which continues on down to the west.
There is a piece in between that has R -10 zoning but it is all wetland plus it is a portion of
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 3
the Lake Bradford drainage system. It is not developable. Now we recognize and agree
with the perception that pedestrian improvements and other improvements along Shore
Drive are overdue especially east of Northampton Boulevard. We also know in full faith
that Councilman Jones, Councilman Wood share that belief and have for quite some time.
We have agreed to do everything that is applicable to this particular site by making
improvements on this site. Again, we are not in the heavily traveled area, even with the
development of this property. We are still well under the traffic counts for maximum
capacity of this section of Shore Drive. Weare sitting here with a shopping center across
the street, commercial next to us, all unconditional, and multi-family. We're just seeking
to be treated under the Shore Drive Overlay with density now less than that allowed under
B-4 forthis size parcel as called for the Shore Drive Overlay. In order to have the type of
redevelopment that we certainly seek and should seek in this area to create that mixed use
interaction and to help this commercial across the street, we think this is absolutely the
best use of this property. I also have an exhibit that shows Pleasure House Road. And
Pleasure House Road, while it is not certainly Shore Drive, it is not the major four-lane
arterial highway that Shore Drive is, but as you head north on Pleasure House Road from
this site (and I'll pass this around) again the majority of the land use in that area is multi-
family. There is a little bit more single-family on Pleasure House Road, but recognize
that Pleasl!re House Road is a residential collector, not a major arterial. I'll pass this
around. This just reiterates what the staff has recommended with regard to this particular
parcel of assembled properties. We have property owners here that understand that there
is a need for improvements to Shore Drive. We also know that Council is moving to do
that, but sometimes government does move or seems to move slowly. It's not the lack of
desire or lack of effort. It just takes time for these projects, because of the different
bureaucracies and plans that have to be approved and come forward. But I know they are
coming forward. They will take place. We're doing our part. We've agreed to put a
crosswalk in front of our property, but that is not something that is desired. It's not the
appropriate location. It needs to be at the intersection of Pleasure House. The property
owner I'm representing, as well as the developer, they understand the shortcomings with
regard to infrastructure. In fact, the homes, these homes that front on Shore Drive, don't
have City water or City sewer. It doesn't exist there. The residents have been living there
all these years with septic and well because there is no City water or City sewer service
available to those homes. They recognize, and certainly understand, that there is a need
for infrastructure. And the infrastructure will be provided with this redevelopment, with
no cost to the taxpayers, to this particular piece of property. Again, as your staff has
recommended, and as I think many of you recognize this is a great opportunity for a very
much needed redevelopment on this site, on this location, which will help foster the
mixed use and the vitality of the commercial center across the street from this piece of
property. It is certainly not treating this property in a unique or different fashion. Again,
because of its location, this does not face the same issues that exist with regard to the
section between Northampton Boulevard and Great Neck Road, where we recognize that
there are greater traffic issues involved. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I have the
yellow light not the red light. I didn't mean to try to keep you all from seeing the lights
but this (display board) just shows the zoning that is not single-family along Shore Drive.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 4
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: The height of the building? Would you explain that again?
Eddie Bourdon: Only on the eastern side of the building?
Ronald Ripley: Next to Wawa?
Eddie Bourdon: Next to Wawa, in this area, the peak of the roof is 63 feet. It is 35 feet
within 100 feet of our west and 100 feet of Shore Drive. This is the section where the
under-building parking exists, and that is the section where the rooflines are most
complex:" It is a beautiful elevation. You've seen it. That height is to create that
attractive roofline. That is where you get a little bit more height. But it is 63 feet. That is
certainly nothing spectacular. Three stories of residences with parking underneath.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you very much.
Joseph Strange: Speaking in support we have Judy...
Eddie Bourdon: I apologize. The property owners are here in support. Would you all
please stand? These are the people who own some of those homes on that street. I'm
sorry Mr. Strange.
Barry Knight: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Judy? I'm having trouble with this name.
Judy Freitas: Penny Smith is going to speak for me. She is one of the homeowners.
Eddie Bourdon: It is a property owner. The only property owner that is going to speak is
Penny Smith. She should have put a card in there.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Welcome ma'am.
Penny Smith: Thank you.
Barry Knight: Please state your name for the record.
Penny Smith: Good afternoon. My name is Penny Smith. Now I know what a hard job
you have. I would like to address the Lake Bradford condominiums. I am one of the ten
deeded owners of the nine single-family units. Very rarely do you get nine people to
agree. We have owned and resided in this home that was built in the '40s between 3 and
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 5
25 years. I'm the oldie, and I was the newby. Some of us have had children or have
children attending the Virginia Beach schools. You drive by and see our properties and
one might think that ours is in the lost corridor. And it is on Shore Drive. Our homes no
longer fit the area. Across Shore Drive is a commercial shopping center and there are
about 20 stores there. There is a condominium next to us, and Wawa on the other side.
Many of these establishments have made a tremendous improvement in our area but our
single-family homes no longer fit. These houses were built some 60 years ago when
things were a lot different. Shore Drive was a lot different when I moved here. Of nine
houses, only four that are situated on Shore Drive have City water and sewer and I am not
one of them. Also, the four houses on Shore Drive once had longer front yards, and have
given that to the City to widen the road. But it reduces our ability to landscape and
reduce some of the noise. Some of them are worried that it might affect the access to
Chick's Beach. I rarely go that way because of the congestion from Pleasure House down
to Great Neck. I go the other way. Anyone who lives on Shore Drive will tell you where
the traffic is. Our 3 to 4 acres is a diamond in the rough. They will utilize Lake
Bradford, which we have never been able to do. I couldn't afford to clean up back there
and have the beauty of Lake Bradford, and the developer will be able to do that. We put
up hedges and all for Wawa, but it is not enough and it is too costly. I think this will be a
benefit to _everyone involved. The new owners, Lake Bradford, Virginia Beach schools
and the City's infrastructure. That is all that I have to say.
Barry Knight: Thank you.
Penny Smith: Are there any questions?
Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am.
Penny Smith: Thank you.
Joseph ~trange: Speaking in opposition we have Steve Kohler.
Barry Knight: We1come sir. Please state your name for the record.
Steve Kohler: I'm Steve Kohler. I'm the President of the Chesapeake Beach Civic
League. I was here back in January, which you probably all recall. I'll try to be as brief
as possible. Basically, our residents in the neighborhood received a flyer in the January
newsletter detailing this proposed project. At our January civic league general meeting,
we presented an overview of this project based on information from the public
presentation at the January 11,2006 Planning Commission meeting. So our residents are
familiar with this project. After both these efforts to inform our membership of these
issues, our civic league voted unanimously to oppose any rezoning of the property at
Shore Drive and North Oliver Drive, and that still stands on our record, and has not
changed. We also oppose this particular plan. In our opinion, this proposal has not
changed significantly since that time. In addition, over 600 signatures have been
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 6
collected in opposition of this project so far. I'm not sure if you're aware of that? Our
civic league opposes this project for several reasons, which will be presented by the
following speakers today. One of the reasons we oppose this project is because of the
approximately eight-fold increase in density for nine single-family homes to 77 or more
units. I do not believe that this project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
for this Primary Residential Area. The 2003 Comprehensive Plan states simply on pages
95 and 96, "the recent history of development in the corridor is characterized by too high
density on too small parcels of land", which I also saw was in the proposal, which you all
have now. In addition, the ULI (the Urban Land Institute) Bayfront Study states on page
33 that, "many of the communities are made up of single-family homes and should be
protected from intrusion of higher density development". There are single-family homes
across the street on South Oliver Drive. It is not all just a shopping center. And directly
behind the proposed development there are also single-family homes. The ULI study
says, "the density of new development of this area should not overwhelm the
community." Our community believes that the density of this project is still too high and
will overwhelm the community. Further, based on the Comprehensive Plan technical
data from 2000, the Bayfront area already has the highest density in the city at 9.4 people
per acre with the next highest at 7 people per acre. Given that the proposed site is 3.5
acres and !he average number of people per dwelling is 2.33 and the Bayfront area is
almost 10 people per acre, would result in 15.5 volume, which is exactly what that current
zoning of R-lO would produce.
Ed Weeden: You have about 20 seconds.
Steve Kohler: I'll tie this up as quickly as possible. Therefore, the current zoning already
would allow the area to maintain the highest density in the city of almost 10 people per
acre. Our civic league sees no valid reason for rezoning this property. We ask you not to
encourage their support, and create an even higher discrepancy in density between the
Bayfront area and other areas in the city by allowing this rezoning. I would just like to
close with mentioning the following organizations that are officially opposed to this
rezoning and the project. The Waters Point Condo Home Owners Association, The
Baylake Pines Civic League, Ocean Park Civic League, Shore Drive Community
Coalition, Cape Story by the Sea Civic League, and Lynnhaven Colony, which voted at
the SDCC meeting to oppose this project. Are there any questions?
Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Kohler? Thank you sir.
Steve Kohler: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Mark Walker.
Mark Walker: Thank you so much. My name is Mark Walker. I handed out a copy of
what I'm about to say. I'm just going to read it word for word. I am going to try to be
quick. There is a lot of stuff. Again, my name is Mark Walker. I'm a registered architect
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 7
and I've been in the industry for over 27 years. I'm a resident of Chesapeake Beach since
1979, and I'm opposed to this proposed project. Although I have great respect for the
Planning Department and Planning Commission, I strongly feel that the 77-unit
condominium project as proposed in this rezoning request, is not in compliance with the
ULI Bayfront Study, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan.
This rezoning application identifies the proposed project as being within the Primary
Residential Area (Shore Drive Corridor, Site #1) and quotes from the page 89 of the
City's Comprehensive Plan, which was mentioned by Mr. Kohler, stating that land use
plan policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on
"persevering and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of
the surrounding stable neighborhoods." I fail to understand how this project can preserve
and proteCt the overall character and aesthetic quality of the adjacent A-12 medium
density nor the R-lO low-density neighborhoods. On the contrary, the project proposes
high density, nearly comparable to an A-24 development with unlimited height
restriction, showing a 70- foot tall building. I guess that should be amended to 63 or in
that range as Mr. Bourdon mentioned. This development will be nearly twice the density
of the A-12 property to the west and nearly six times the density of the current zoning and
twice the height of any other structures within the immediate visible area. The
Comprehensive Plan further states, on pages 95 & 96, "The recent history of development
in the (Shore Drive) corridor has been characterized by too high density on too small
parcels of land, and the Shore Drive Overlay District is intended in part, to restore the
property balance." This proposed 77 unit condo project is precisely the type of
development to which this previous statement is referring - too high density on too small
parcels of land." It seems to me how could this be more clear? The major objectives of
the Shore Drive Corridor Plan are stated on page 16 of the plan, "to protect and enhance
the quality of residential communities in the corridor." This objective is further
reinforced on page 8, "new development and redevelopment in the (Shore Drive) area
should be oriented towards protection and enhancement of the character of existing
residential neighborhoods." In the ULI Bayfront Study, on page 33, the study states,
"many of the communities (along Shore Drive) are made up of single-family homes and
should be protected from the intrusion of higher density development." In closing, none
of the three documents I've referenced, the ULI Bayfront Study, the Shore Drive Corridor
Plan nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan support this proposed project and neither do I.
This high density project will not improve the quality of life for citizens along the Shore
Drive corridor, so please don't allow it. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Any questions for Mr. Walker? Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: I got a question.
Mark W alker: Yes sir.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 8
Ronald Ripley: Not withstanding this use, what infrastructure on this road in this vicinity
is lacking? What in your mind should be an infrastructure improvement in this area that
would make it work better?
Mark Walker: Why not leave it as it is?
Ronald Ripley: Leave the road like it is?
Mark Walker: You mean infrastructure in the road itself and not the development we're
trying to replace?
Ronald Ripley: Road. Sidewalks. Crosswalks.
Mark Walker: Got you. I would say infrastructure-wise, sidewalks on both sides. I would
widen the sidewalks from the proposed five feet to about eight feet so that people can
pass with either cycling or walking. I think five feet is too narrow. Crosswalks are
desperately needed in that area. The only place you can cross is at the intersection safely.
If there is influx of people right in that proposed project, how are they going to get across
safely? I mean there is no crosswalk plan. There are no light plans. If you do put a light
in there, you're only going to be about 300 feet from the intersection of Shore Drive and
Pleasure House, which there are so many problems now trying to go from Wawa and
trying to go east on Shore Drive. First, you have to go west. You have to make a u-turn
at Oliver Street to go east. Well, all of these people from Wawa are trying to go east are
trying to adjust position in getting into the left lane to make that left turn into the
eastbound lane. You're going to have another 178 potential cars trying to do the same
thing. Frankly, I think it is a recipe for disaster.
Ronald Ripley: Thank you.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Walker? Mr. Bernas.
Mark Walker: Yes sir.
Jay Bernas: You had mentioned that you don't like high density of it. What would you
recommend that you leave it as R-lO?
Mark Walker: That is exactly what I recommend. But the whole corridor in there is
exploding to the point where traffic, I guess you've driven Shore Drive lately, but the
traffic is getting impossible. Pedestrians are trying to cross. That is sort of a beach
community, and there are a lot of people on foot through there, and it is very difficult in
the Shore Drive corridor to do anything on foot because it is unsafe. I tried to ride my
bike over there along Shore Drive about a year ago, and was nearly hit myself. I mean it
is very, very tough. I would keep density as it is. I don't see any reason. I mean the
neighborhood there and the houses are nice houses. I'm sure that those who are in favor
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 9
of this project like the idea that the developer is going to be giving them large money for
their houses because he's got that built that into his project. Normally, the house values
wouldn't be selling for as much. I'm sure the developer is offering them, but I don't know
that for a fact, but I would assume that.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Walker? Thank you sir.
Mark Walker: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Todd Solomon.
Barry Knight: Welcome sir.
Todd Solomon: Good afternoon. My name is Todd Solomon. I'm here representing the
Shore Drive Community Coalition Organization of about 25 civic and condo associations
on Shore Drive. I'm also representing Cape Story by the Sea, which is one of the
residential districts along Shore Drive, which Mr. Bourdon forgot to mention in this area.
I did pass out a previous letter that was sent to you as far as the Shore Drive Community
Coalition, _the last time this was visited. The Shore Drive Community Coalition, after that
last meeting, was met by the developer at our general meeting and since then nothing has
changed as far as the Shore Drive Community Coalition's opinion goes on this project.
The reduction in height and some of the other issues haven't changed enough for the
Shore Drive Community Coalition to take a different stance on that issue. My topic of
speech today was height. I thought it was going to be the easiest discussion; however,
I've yet to determine exactly what the height of this project is. We have been told several
different things. You see in the minutes from the January meeting that it could be 45 to
48 feet in height in the back, the high side. It could 35 to 40 in the front. When the
developer came to our meeting he mentioned the highest point would be 70 feet. I'm
hearing today that it is 63 feet, 35 foot on the front. I'm not exactly sure what section this
elevation shows you. Is that the three-story or is that the four-story? That's Wawa
section or not? I'm assuming it's the four-story section with parking underneath. But the
three-story section obviously is going to be at least 12 foot levels. So you're talking at
least 35. to 36 feet if you don't put a roof on it and some other things. So, I'm assuming
that these numbers at some point should be justified. But this project would be the largest
project west of Bayvista, which is next to the Lesner Bridge. That is the pictures that I've
shown to you on that second page there. Everything west of that will be the tallest
project, basically double the size ofthe surrounding residential and A-12 35-foot projects.
If you could kind of picture that development roughly that size in that area, sticking out
like sore thumb.
Ed Weeden: Mr. Solomon, about 30 seconds.
Todd Solomon: I see that. Thank you. The facility next to Kroger is taller than 35 feet,
however it is kind of buffered by the fact that Northampton Boulevard is at an elevation --
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 10
so it doesn't look quite as tall. That Bayvista project was also recommended by staff and
it did not conclude with the height and bulk of a Conditional Use Permit at one point in
time. I would suggest that this project also fall into that same category. Are there any
questions?
Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Solomon? Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: Todd, do you have more you need to say?
Todd Solomon: I do have a quick deal about the density also to tie into what one of the
other speakers mentioned. This project, as you all hopefully all know that Bayfront area
is the highest density in all of Virginia Beach at 9 Y2 people per acre. - The average on this
project would be a density of approximately 50 people per acre. If you put that many
units on there, that is about 21/2 people per home in that range. So it would be 50 people
per acre. That is one thing that the Shore Drive Community Coalition and the rest of the
civic groups to -- the increase in density. We are seeing this as a trend sending precedent
not only for height but also for density. We've noticed a lot, and you have already seen
all the requests to change B-2s to B-4s to put multi-family dwellings along Shore Drive.
This is ev~n more so as a change in residential zoning to put in a B-4. Once this project
is approved, if it is approved, it will open the doors also to more B-4 residential or B-2' s
abutting residential, which you may see on some of these B-2. They may want to change
that over and get rid of the restaurant and build multi-family, you could acquire some
residential behind it too. I'm sure coming here and requesting rezoning. That is our fear.
That we're not only taking B-2s and changing them to B-4s as an increase in density, but
we're also taking residential and increasing the zoning to increase the density.
Barry Knight: Thanks. Ms. Wood.
Dorothy Wood: Todd, we all agree with what you do. I think you have been down here
since I've been on Planning Commission on various issues, and thank you. What would
you be happy with since a single-family home is probably out?
Todd Solomon: I wouldn't mind seeing, and I know you can do 14, may be 15 if it is, if
you did 7 or 8 duplex townhome type units, which has actually done a lot on the R-5R
throughout our neighborhood. They can knock it down and put two homes on it. If you
did 14 or 15 of those and kept them at 35-foot requirement, a three-story requirement at
35 foot, I think it would fit in nicely. Nobody in the Coalition is opposed to redeveloping
that property. It is just the high density in the large scale and the height of it. I believe
that some of the pine trees there are probably not 70 foot tall either.
Dorothy Wood: Thanks Todd.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Solomon? Thank you.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 11
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Daphne Atkins.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma' am.
Daphne Atkins: Hi.
Barry Knight: Please state your name please?
Daphne Atkins: My name is Daphne Atkins, and I live in Chesapeake Beach. I'm the
Vice President of the Shore Drive Community Coalition, and I was on the Shore Drive
Safety Task Force. In addition to all of that, I actually work, and I thought taking a half
hour or so today. I wish I had lunch before I came. Anyway, I understand you were
waiting for the Task Force to make a decision about what to do on this property. And you
can see the suggestions we came up with in our report. The Task Force was necessary
because of the increase of fatalities on Shore Drive. It is already a high-risk road. Many
of you might be familiar with the death sign on Shore Drive. It was created in 1977, and
since 1977, there have been 89 deaths on Shore Drive. That averages out to 3.1 per year.
Last year we had six. And five of those were pedestrians. The Task Force came up with
many sug~estions. Everything from sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and looking at the
speed limit to having the Planning Department and City officials review the many studies.
All the studies they quoted, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, the ULI Study, the Overlay
District, those need to be looked at in light of density recommendations because density is
what has created the problem on Shore Drive. I know some people think we can have
high density, and we could have a lot of people high density and still make it safe, but
Shore Drive passed that point 10 or 20 years ago. Right now, we are playing catch up on
Shore Drive in trying to get it to be safe from what's there currently. B-4 zoning specially
is what we're trying to avoid on Shore Drive, and that is why we want them to look at that
and to reconsider. It is seems like when the public looks at that, and what we think that
document says and what some times comes out of Planning or developers or other people
think says are two different things. So, this is one reason that we feel like you should
deny this change of zoning. A second reason is the five pedestrian deaths in one year, and
only one of those incidents involved drinking. It had two people involved in it, but I
know we hear a lot about DUI's and everybody is drunk on Shore Drive. Everybody
walking is drunk. Everybody riding a bike is drunk. Everybody driving is drunk. That is
absolutely not true. One incident with the two victims involved alcohol for part of the
people walking across Shore Drive. But like I say, you build five condos around a bar,
buy high-density condos around a bar, somebody is going to walk in and have a drink; so,
the fact that this development would be mid-block, with overflow parking going across
the street according to Mr. Bourdon, this project is an accident waiting to happen. We
don't need these people crossing Shore Drive. Reason number three is traffic flow. I
know Mr. Bourdon said that everybody coming out of here would be turning right and
going down Independence. That is because you can't turn left. We already have a lot of
u-turns on Shore Drive between people trying to get to the Wawa, going east and people
coming out of the Wawa and trying to turn back around and go east. People would be
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 12
coming out of this street and trying to turn around and go back towards the Oceanfront,
because the whole reason why Shore Drive is so popular is not because of what is to the
right going towards Norfolk but because people want to live there because of what is to
the left all the way down to the Oceanfront. So that is the third reason we think you
should deny this. Reason number four is the Task Force recommendations evaluating
access points and this creates another mid-block access point out onto Shore Drive with
all the obvious problems that go on with that. I could continue going through the report.
The problem with density is referenced on page 16. It is an 18-page report, but I don't
think you want me to talk that long. I think these are stand-out reasons. And in
conclusion the developer chose to go to Shore Drive in Virginia Beach to build his condo
instead of Norfolk. Probably one of the reasons he did that was because Norfolk
wouldn't-approve it. Because one ofthe things they keep saying is they don't want to
become another Shore Drive. And this section of Shore Drive is different than what's
farther up towards the Lesner Bridge. This is more of a family, single-family type section
of Shore Drive and some duplexes. So, we would really just like to have it stay that way,
and not scatter the problems we already have.
Barry Knight: Thank you ma' am.
Daphne Atkins: Thank you.
Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Ms. Atkins?
Ronald Ripley: You mentioned access, how else would you access it? Because there is
one access point to this property. You have to have access. So, how would you do it?
Daphne Atkins: We realize you have to have access but what it is zoned for now you
would have 15 houses zoned to access out onto Shore Drive versus 77 condos. That is
just a lot more people.
Ronald Ripley: Okay. You're talking about the number of cars? Okay. I'm sorry.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions?
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Ronda Morrison.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am.
Ronda Morrison: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Ronda Morrison. I represent Ocean
Park Civic League. I am here today to talk to you about traffic volume in that area. Our
current traffic volume on Shore Drive, according to this report, is 22,516 average daily
trips. With the capacity of 28,200 average daily trips. This will increase that by 505 I
believe, was the exact total daily average trips. It would continue to do this with this
development. In the next month, doing this development, we are very quickly going to
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 13
surpass our 28,200 average daily trips very quickly. Also, of utmost importance is the
vehicular ingress/egress to the property. There would no longer be a median break in
front of North Oliver. People will have to make the left. They will have to make a u-turn
to go east bound on Shore Drive. If someone is coming home from work from Norfolk,
they will have to go down to Pleasure House Road, make the u-turn to come back into
their property. So either way you are traveling you are going to have to make a u-turn on
Shore Drive. We already have an issue at Pleasure House Point where people are having
to make that u-turn if they're coming eastbound on Shore Drive to go into the Wawa. So
that is just going to create a larger problem than what we already have. The traffic back-
ups are already affecting the Fire Department and Rescue Squad that is located down off
Pleasure House Road. This is going to increase the density in that area. They currently
sometimes have to go down the wrong side of the road to get out to Shore Drive. This is
going to make it much worse. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Thank you ma'am. Are there any questions for Ms. Morrison? Thank you.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Brian Camden.
Barry Kni~ht: Welcome sir.
Brian Camden: Good afternoon. My name is Brian Camden. I'm a 25 year resident of
Chesapeake Beach. I'm also a civil engineer and a developer of almost 200 condos under
construction currently. The civic league asked me to take a look at this property and to
comment as a development. One thing that did jump up, and I heard earlier, they said
there was no City water or sewer to this. I noticed here in staff s review of this that there
is six-inch water main running into and down Oliver Drive. There is an existing eight-
inch sanitary sewer and a 24-inch HRSD force main on Shore Drive. I don't know if it is
existing or not, but apparently staff thinks it is.
Faith Christie: They're at the intersection.
Brian Camden: The project itself, and here again as a developer, I kind of disagree with
some of my neighbors on this. I think the project should be developed. In its current
zoning right now, you could put 15 custom homes in there. Fifteen custom homes right
now would probably generate a profit of right around $1,530,000.00. At 77 units, and
condos is what they want to change to, you could probably generate a profit of right
around $5,544,000.00. As a developer, we're all out obviously to make as much money
as we can on this. But the fact of the matter is that this property -- I don't know if you've
been down there -- but this thing is full of beautiful sea oaks, a lot of pine trees, and stuff
like that. The development that they currently got planned is a "strip mine" type of
development, where they're going to bulldoze all these old trees and come in there and
put in a big box type structure. If you develop it and kept it at its current zoning, and just
put in 15 nice custom homes, you will be able to make a million or a million and a half in
profit, and you would be able to keep a good deal of the existing trees that are out there.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.C.
Page 14
And finally, just let me say that this is a cul-de-sac that you're building. You're putting in
77 units in to a cul-de-sac. Nowhere in the city are you allowed to do that right now.
That's it.
Barry Knight: Mr. Camden thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you sir.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Leslie Cornwell.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am.
Leslie Cornwell: Hi. Good afternoon. I am Leslie Cornwell, and I'm representing the
Baylake Pines Civic League. On January 23, 2006, our members voted to oppose this
project on Ocean Properties and the rezoning from R-IO to B-4. The speakers before me
have done a wonderful job explaining in detail the reasons why you should deny this
development and the zoning change. Simply put, the Bayfront area is in trouble. High
density and the types of construction that have been allowed to be built has had a
devastating impact on the culture and the character that we once had. Our roads are
becoming overwhelmed and we continue to compete for funding of the Shore Drive
improve~ent projects. Our residents are being killed, because they lack the basic
pedestrian safety infrastructure such as sidewalks, bike trails, and pedestrian crosswalks.
Again, we are fighting to fund the recommendations of the Shore Drive Safety Task
Force. Recommendations for public safety, because we can no longer wait for the
improvement projects that are years away from ever being constructed, for our need for
more police, fire, and EMS staffing. Our open space has been consumed by development,
and in 2000, the Outdoors Plan stated that we needed 82 acres to adequately serve our
existence, 82 more acres. Here we are six years later with even a greater population, and
currently high-density developments are planned for the last few years of open space. No
wonder the City of Norfolk is using the Bayfront as an example of what not to do. We all
hold responsibility in what has happened to our community. The resident that can't resist
an enormous offer for their property. The builder that focuses to much on profit and not
enough on building a project that would enhance and blend with the' surrounding
community. And most of all the City. City Planning and this Board continually deviate
from the consistent frame of the ULI and the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Overlay,
which were meant to preserve and protect the single-family homes and neighborhoods.
We can no longer continue on this course. We need a vision that incorporates all of these
studies and plans along with developers, and most of all, the residents, to come up with a
redevelopment strategy that would retain what is left of the unique character of our
community, and allow us to leave a legacy that we can all be proud of. A plan that
includes more than guidelines, but is a power to ensure this vision is followed. We do not
oppose redevelopment, but we must demand reasonable development that does not
overpower a community, but blends and enhances. Until the Bayfront finally receives the
funding for our overwhelmed infrastructure, and Phases I through IV are completed, we
can no longer tolerate or even consider this type of high density development. We ask
this Board to work with the City Planning Department and Council to reevaluate the
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 15
Shore Drive Corridor Plan and the Overlay. We are in desperate need for a plan that will
finally protect and preserve our single-family neighborhoods. When you look at the
whole picture and not just one single development, you finally can comprehend what is
happening to Bayfront area. You have to understand that this development and this
rezoning cannot be approved. The only other quick statement that I wanted to make is
that it is kind of misconceiving when they make the comment that "Baylake Pines is the
only the single-family on Shore Drive. "There are single families across the street, on
Pleasure House Road. You have Chick's Beach. You have Bayville Park before you even
get to Baylake Pines. Yes, I realize we are maybe the only ones that literally have a home
on Shore Drive, there are a lot of single-family homes in this area andthe impact is really,
as you can see, not been good and very negative. We need to stop and look at what we
have been doing.
Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Cornwell. Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am.
Leslie Cornwell: Thank you.
Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Robert Costello.
Barry Knight: Welcome sir.
Robert Costello: Hi. I'm Robert Costello. I live on Bradpointe Lane off of Pleasure
House Road. Commissioner Wood quoted earlier from the Virginian-Pilot article that
stated that "residents have a good reason to be wary of developers and their project." It is
unfortunate when a City Council and a Planning Commission places the City's residents
in such a position that the residents are given a good reason to be wary of builders and
their projects. Residents in Chesapeake Beach area and all along Shore Drive are
painfully aware of the uncontrolled increase in density along Shore Drive and the absolute
lack of added infrastructure in the face of that increased density. The lack of
infrastru?ture and the uncontrolled rise in density have created an expediential increase in
the safety hazards to the residences along the Shore Drive corridor. In the 19 years that
I've owned my house in Chesapeake Beach, I have not seen any improvements on the
infrastructure. I appreciate that the Shore Drive Safety Task Force and the Shore Drive
Advisory Committee have made recommendations to improve the infrastructure along
Shore Drive, but only when the changes to infrastructure are actually approved by
Council and funded, then it will be seen that the City is doing something to improve the
safety along Shore Drive. Until such a time, approving large-scale developments, which
cause the multi-fold increase of population density, will give the appearance that the City
is more interested in increasing the tax revenue base then they are in the safety of
residents. Mr. Bourdon is fine at pointing out precedents that are established when the
Commission and the City Council approve certain building projects. This project will be
the first of its kind not just in Chesapeake Beach, but the first on Shore Drive, west of
Albemarle. This will be a bad precedent. The City had a good reason when they
originally designated this area as R-lO Residential. Don't second guess those City
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 16
administrators who did so. Leave it zoned the way it is as R-lO. Do not change the
zoning to B-4. In his testimony in front of the Commission, Mr. Bourdon has stated that
this project will provide economic revitalization to the area. That is a joke. This is not an
area suffering from blight. Every available space in the Bayside Shopping Center across
the street from this proposed project is leased. There are no empty commercial properties
where they're looking for business. This is not a proposal that will alleviate blight. This
is a redevelopment out of greed to maximize the amount of properties that can be stacked
on top of any given area property. I request again that you oppose this proposal. Thank
you.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Costello. Are there any questions? Thank you sir.
Joseph Strange: Our next speaker is Patricia Costello.
Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am.
Patricia Costello: Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is Patricia Costello. You have
listened to people who are very educated and have been in the business and they're the
best repre~entatives of the residents of Chesapeake Beach that we could ask for and come
and plead our case in front of you. I'm very proud ofthem. I'm in here because I'm the
emotional type, and I want to represent to you the hundreds of residents of Chesapeake
Beach that feel as strongly as I do that this is not the right use for this property. It is
actually a very good pleasant-looking building. It deserves to have some space around it,
so that the people who live there have room to breathe. They won't have room to breathe
if it is built right here on Shore Drive. I drive down that street every single day and
sometimes multiple times a day, so I can attest to that. I hope that you will listen to
people who have communicated with you, because each person who actually writes to
you or sends you an email, is representing dozens, if not hundreds of people in our
neighborhood who have signed petitions and who feel as passionately about this as I am
speaking right now. I know that you have to make business decisions. And think about
the tax revenue that you will collect from these propertie. But we fiiIDly believe that
leaving it as R-lO and putting in excellent quality single-family homes will bring in the
property balance between what the community can sustain and what the City can receive
as tax revenue. So I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Joseph Strange: Those are all the speakers.
Barry Knight: Thank you ma'am. Okay. Mr. Bourdon.
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Knight. First of all, I do appreciate the comments of all
the speakers who have spoken. I certainly don't intend to evolve into name calling and
characterization. But I will say a couple of things regarding what is patently obvious, and
Item #15, 16,17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 17
that is the land use pattern along Shore Drive in this section of Shore Drive is not single-
family residential land use on Shore Drive. Clearly, the only, because there is no single-
family zoned property on this section of Shore Drive across the street on South Oliver, as
I think it was insinuated is zoned. Both sides of South Oliver on Shore Drive is zoned B-
2 commercial. Mr. Solomon is correct. I didn't talk about Cape Story by the Sea, which
is east of Great Neck Road and is five miles from this property, and all of that property in
that section of Shore Drive is single-family and that is exactly what the ULI Study was
talking about. That section of Shore Drive, as well as Baylake Pines in the section of
Shore Drive, are the only sections not already completely commercial and multi-family
residential development. This is the only piece of property in this section of Shore Drive
from Independence Boulevard on the west, and actually west of Independence Boulevard,
all the way to Baylake Pines. Everything on both sides of Shore Drive is all commercial
or multi-family residential. There is no single-family zoning or single-family land use.
And that is a fact. There is a break behind this property. You got W awa. You got the
break of the Lake Bradford watershed. You got the multi-family and you got multi-
family to our west. So, the ULI Study - it is disingenuous for Mark Walker or anyone
else to suggest -- that study was saying that this little enclave the only single-families, is
an island that everyone forgot, that it is intended to say we need to preserve that single-
family. I'~ sorry if any of you have been on that street, and can look at those 60 year old
houses that do not have water and sewer. Water and sewer does not extend down or up
North Oliver Drive. I'm sorry. That part is absolutely disingenuous. I absolutely do
agree, and we do agree that infrastructure is needed in that area,. but redevelopment
doesn't happen the way the gentleman spoke of. His numbers don't make sense. Judy
Freitas, who is a commercial realtor has asked that she be permitted to speak. I've
explained to her that I don't know if you could allow someone to speak in rebuttal that
did not speak initially. But, the City of Norfolk would love to have this project. It is a
beautiful project. I'm also glad that Todd indicated correctly that the four-story building
senior housing facility next to Kroger is right down the street and is viewable from this
piece of property. It is similar in height. In fact, it is higher overall than this because it is
that height entirely, but this just has one small section that is more than 35 to 45 feet. I'll
be happy to answer your questions. Three minutes is not very long. .} don't know
whether or not you will allow Ms. Freitas to speak or not.
Judy Freitas: I have some information.
Barry Knight: Did she sign in?
Joseph Strange: She signed in. I called her name and she didn't want to speak.
Barry Knight: What is the information? Does anyone want to sponsor her?
Kathy Katsias: I'll sponsor her.
Barry Knight: We1come ma' am. Please identify yourself.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 18
Judy Freitas: Thank you very much. My name is Judy Freitas. I am a residential
commercial, 22 years in real estate, and I'm a broker for Long and Foster. I also want you
to know that I am a registered nurse. I also want you to know that I ran rescue for a year
and a half at Station 14 at the Oceanfront. I'm about people. I'm all about health. I need
to express, sitting there, and it was just jumping out of me. I appreciate the engineer, the
developer and what they're saying. If you drive by this community, it is isolated. These
are nine parcels completely surrounded by multi-family, commercial, and shopping
centers. They're 60-year old properties. The only four that have City water and City
sewage are the front ones facing Shore Drive. Two and half years ago, I know for a fact
that Edie Hughes and her husband tried desperately to get City water and City sewage to
go through the back. She is all the way to the back on Lake Bradford. People don't even
know it exists back there because from that front of Shore Drive, when you drive by
there, it is a site not for pleasant viewing. And from my 22 years of experience, I can tell
you that this is not about money. You could rip down these 60 year old buildings, and
you could attempt to put up single-family homes, and I couldn't tell you one person that
would want to purchase a single-family residence among multi-family commercial and
four lanes. This developer is going in there proposing sidewalks. He is proposing to
maintain the beauty of Lake Bradford. It will be more accessible. This does not cut off in
any way C_hick's Beach. It doesn't affect Chick's Beach. It didn't in the beginning. It is
far enough west on Shore Drive. The military base is basically the next gate up from after
the multi-family. I just got a little confused sitting there. Some of the subdivisions that
came up are not even remotely close to what we're referencing here. That is why I
needed for you to understand I'm not coming here as a broker. I love people. I wouldn't
have been a registered nurse. I would not have done rescue and devoted a lot of other
things, and I don't want to get all into that. That is all that I wanted to say. I do
appreciate you listening to me. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Thank you. Ms. Wood has a question.
Dorothy Wood: Do you live there ma'am?
Judy Freitas: I live in Little Neck in Virginia Beach and a 22-year resident.
Dorothy Wood: What is your connection with this property?
Judy Freitas: I am the broker of Long and Foster representing the sellers and I've walked
the property. I bought the parcel. I said that when I came up. I didn't try to hide my
identity in any way, shape or form.
Dorothy Wood: I didn't say that.
Judy Freitas: I apologize. But I didn't want to hide my identity. I wasn't here for any
other purpose. That is why I chose not to speak. But when I started hearing some of the
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 19
things that were mentioned.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Ms. Katsias.
Kathy Katsias: Has the developer considered -- and I think one of the recommendations
was the lower density and making it duplex versus multi-family -- have they considered
making it 17 duplexes?
Judy Freitas: All that I am aware of, because I know Eddie Bourdon would have to
address this, but I know he has brought down the noise decibel level according to the City
Council and the second go around on his aesthetics only with shrubbery and bushes and
trees and his preservation of Lake Bradford and keeping that natural environment as to
the beauty as it should be.
Kathy Katsias: That wasn't my question. I was lowering the density.
Judy Freitas: The density. He did as requested, but I don't know if its gotten any lower
than that.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you ma'am. Are there any
questions for Mr. Bourdon? Okay. Ms. Katsias. Mr. Bourdon.
Kathy Katsias: My question to you is has the developer entertained the duplex?
Eddie Bourdon: Ms. Katsias. Most of you certainly recognize the cost of redeveloping a
site like this with the demolition costs and the asbestos removal cost in these older
homes. It is really prohibitive. The idea that was put forth that someone could make a
million and half dollars by redeveloping this property into some number of single-family
homes. I've represented, as you all know, represented a lot of developers. Our firm does
well. I don't want to insult anybody. It is absolutely not feasible. It would not be able to
done. I'il simply say it that way. The numbers are numbers that will make this doable.
You get down in that situation. It isn't doable.
Barry Knight: Ms. Wood.
Dorothy Wood: Eddie, obviously you have a few people in opposition today. Did you
know that? What could you see here that you could do perhaps with this property? It is a
beautiful design. Could it be smaller? What could you do? I'mjust asking a question.
Eddie Bourdon: No. Ms. Wood, I certainly understand and appreciate that. I absolutely
can assure you that your question has been asked of the developer and his architect long
before today. Okay. The opposition does not come as a surprise to them nor to me. And,
they have looked at every way to make this work, and make it feasible. The reality is if
this project is not one that is approvable, they can't make the numbers work, and they will
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 20
not be able to do anything. Again, this didn't come as a surprise. Some of the comments
maybe, but overall it isn't doable. It isn't feasible. This will more than likely, if this
project or something of the same sort is not approved, and I would just point out that last
summer in the heart of Ocean Park, the Colley Marine site zoned B-2 was rezoned B-4
for a similar high quality residential development without any opposition. It has been not
even a year; so this developer is looking at this as a far better location than that, from a
traffic standpoint and everything else. We believe this is consistent with the Shore Drive,
DLI, and Corridor Study, which we all withdrew and which we approved that rezoning.
Council approved the Colley Marine rezoning, and it wasn't even controversial. And this
is less density than that was in terms of the per acre number of units now that we have
reduced it. So, there are some inconsistencies here on part of the opposition. I do
understand, and I can sympathize with, the fact that there is a perception, not an
inaccurate one, that infrastructure improvements, sidewalks, bike paths, and pedestrian
connection need to happen on Shore Drive. They absolutely have to. I was at the Council
meeting last night, and the City actually got an award last night as the sixth best most
walkable city in the country. I sat there and said, there is some merit to that, but I can tell
you that there is a tremendous place that we can get number one, and that is what we need
to do on Shore Drive plus when the Transition Area gets there with all those trails. Ten
years from now, hoping sooner on Shore Drive, we'll be number one in that walkability
thing, I caD. tell you that. The entire area of Shore Drive needs walkability. There is no
disagreement about that whatsoever.
Dorothy Wood: I don't mean to ask you the same question in a different way, but...
Eddie Bourdon: That's okay.
Dorothy Wood: What about the back buildings? The ones that people seem to have a
problem with them being so high? Is there anything to bring them down?
Eddie Bourdon: That would necessitate eliminating the under the building parking. Part
of the attractiveness and appearance is that you don't have a sea of parking.
Dorothy Wood: I know. I'mjust trying to see what we can do.
Eddie Bourdon: What you will see from Shore Drive is 35 feet. It's back behind it. Back
behind the wall there would be portions that would be a little bit taller. A four-story
senior housing facility next to the grocery store is actually a much larger building overall.
Todd's point is not without merit that on the Northampton side, because of the on-ramp
being elevated, it does, from that side, not have the same height appearance. But from the
Shore Drive side, it does.
Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Bourdon?
Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all very much.
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 21
Barry Knight: Okay Commissioners. I'll open it for discussion among us. Who would
like to start? Mr. Crabtree.
Eugene Crabtree: I think were beating this thing around. This is the second time around.
I heard the same thing today that I heard back in January. I haven't heard anything
different, except for the fact that the developer has redesigned his units. They seem to be
conforming with the safety study as much as can be done, as far as what they're building
and what they're putting in. The thing we heard, that we started off with, was wait until
the Shore Drive Safety Council met. They've met. They've given their report. I don't see
as to where it is really affected us this much. If anything, I think the developer has
improved it to some extent. So, the purpose of the deferral has been met from my
standpoint of view. So consequently, I see moving if forward. I'm going to support the
application. Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Henley.
Al Henley: I'm very familiar with the Chesapeake Beach area, and in particular Chick's
Beach. As a matter of fact, I remember finally visiting my great aunt who lived behind
Frankies on Lookout Road for many years. Those times have changed a great deal.
Virginia Beach has changed a great deal. Who would visualize we would have 400,000
people liv!ng in our midst. Shore Drive is obviously one area that is of great concern and
safety. I would say, Mr. Bourdon, that I think your client should be applauded by trying
to work with the community by lowering it with less units and also, on the traffic study,
by eliminating the cut-through median and a left lane. I think that was absolutely a
hazard. But, I guess what I'm summing up to, is that I will not be able to support this
today primarily because of the density on the small piece of property. I can sympathize
with both parties in opposition as well as in favor of this. If I lived there, I would want
better conditions as well. But also, I am concerned with the residents that came in today
in opposition to speak against this. They had some excellent points in here, and if I lived
in that area, I would probably feel the same way. I do not. I live across the other end of
town. But it is a beautiful complex. If it was on a different parcel of property, I think it
would b~ absolutely gorgeous. It is a beachy unit, and it serves well because it's in the
City of Virginia Beach. But, if you pack people in, I have a problem with that. And just
to make a profit on it, and profit is not everything, and I realize because of the cost of
construction, demolition, as Mr. Bourdon said and asbestos removal, you're talking about
a lot of federal and state regulations that must be met, and they're extremely expensive. I
feel very confident that (if the current developer is not interested in his property) there are
going to be other opportunities for this property to be developed, and in a much better
manner than what we are seeing here today. So based on that, without debating this any
more, I will not be able to support this application. Thank you.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Are there any other comments or discussion? Ms.
Anderson.
Janice Anderson: I'm glad that we deferred it. I thought the project is in my opinion, a
better product because they have reduced the units and they addressed the traffic issue. I
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 22
understand what the neighbors concerns are and that Shore Drive is crowded, but so far as
this developer and this site, I do believe this site is appropriate for multi-family use. R-I0
just doesn't fit anymore. It has been isolated, and I can't believe they got all nine people
to join together to sell the property. That doesn't happen again. I don't think it would
flourish with single-family homes there. It has been eaten up. I think this is appropriate
to do the multi-family. It is dense. They lowered it down, but I don't think it is too
dense. I like it because of the quality. You might get less dense but not the high quality.
They come hand in hand. You're going to have to have a little density to have the high
quality that I think what we're looking for. But I think it is appropriate size. It does add
some benefits. The maintaining of Lake Bradford that everybody has talked about and
the sidewalks that connect to the Wawa. I believe the applicant has done what we have
asked them. I would be in support.
Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Anderson. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Ripley.
Ronald Ripley: When we started on the Shore Drive plan back about nine years ago, I
guess, we started with nothing, and I probably mentioned this before, with no funding at
all. Nothing. We started with an idea of how to improve the corridor. The reason you've
heard her~ are the reasons. The infrastructure is not there. That is a huge problem. There
is movement on infrastructure. We do have the Shore Drive Plan. We have developed
guidelines. This particular applicant has tried to meet those guidelines. A product of the
plan is to say that if you're going to build in this corridor, we want it to have a look that
fits in the corridor. That is part of the solution in some people's mind. We had a meeting
the other day with Bob Scott, myself, Clay and we talked about this, and Kathy, about the
frustration that we have as people who serve on the Committee, and I know the
community has. And we're just extremely frustrated from the standpoint that we are not
able to shake loose funding to complete the infrastructure that needs to happen down
there. The Safety Task Force came back with about 30 million dollars, which would
include all phasing of construction. There are four phasings, and the design of the last
phase, which, when you put all the safety issues in place, put all the infrastructure in
there, so that the gentleman that got up and mentioned that he would like to ride his bike
up on the road and he can't, that is a problem. The combination that the Committee
envisioned, when it was started, was that by having a plan in place, as developments
come along they would pay for part of the infrastructure because we had no money. . That
was part of the process. And as we talked the other day, Bob, Kathy, Clay, and myself,
the development community has done that. The City is the one who has not done it.
We've got a meeting next Tuesday, I think it is, where we're going to present kind of a
"State of the Bayfront Area" to Council, and those points are going to be made very
strongly. I can assure you, because what were asking from Council, and I understand that
they agreed to fund a million of dollars for safety issues, but were going to ask for the
balance of the funding over the next six years. I think there is a possibility of getting it.
So, that's real, real important. You heard the same issues from several speakers that
infrastructure is critical. You got to feel safe. You got to be able to move through this
corridor. This plan will pay for part of that. That is small consolation I'm sure, but they
Item #15, 16, 17
Ocean Properties, L.L.c.
Page 23
definitely will be doing that. I keep looking at the patterns too. I have a hard time seeing
single-family in here. I think either it's a commercial use or it's a multi-family use. To
be single-family, it doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it would make sense as a
townhouse. I don't know, as Todd Solomon suggested. But I don't know the economics.
On the Planning Commission, we don't get into that. We don't ask what you're paying.
We're looking at land use patterns. I think Jan said it in a real good way, and that is, it
just kind of says this is what it ought to be. I think you do have a good plan. With this
particular plan, I think by going back and reducing the size of the number of units and
changing the safety issues, I'm going to support it also.
Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Ripley. Is there any other discussion?
Eugene Crabtree: I'll make a motion that we approve the application as presented.
Barry Knight: Mr. Strange seconds it. Is there any other discussion? We have a motion
on the floor for agenda Item #15 with five proffers, Ocean Properties, L.L.c. Agenda
Item #16, seven conditions and agenda Item #17 with six conditions. A motion made by
Gene Crabtree and seconded by Joe Strange. I'll call for the question.
AYE 9
ANDERSON AYE
BERNAS
CRABTREE AYE
HENLEY
LIVAS AYE
KA TSIAS AYE
KNIGHT AYE
RIPLEY AYE
STRANGE AYE
WALLER AYE
WOOD AYE
NAY 2
ABSO
ABSENT 0
NAY
AYE
Ed Weeden: Bya vote of 9-2, the application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. has been
approved.
Barry Knight: If there is no other business before this body, we will stand adjourned.
1 /
~f~rtJ5 5 J') l ~;,
Letter of opposition to the Ocean Properties~ L.L.C. request for chan!!e
of Zonin!! from R-IO Simde Familv Residential to 8-4 Conditional
Mixed Use for 86 Condo units
My name is Mark Walker. I am a registered Architect and I've been in the
industry for over 27 years. I'm also a resident of Chesapeake Beach since
1979 and I'm opposed to this proposed project. Although I have great
respect'ror t}1e Planning Department and Planning Commission, I strongly
feel that th~ '''_unit condominium project as proposed in this rezoning
request, is not in compliance with the ULI Bay/ront Study, the Shore Drive
Corridor Plan, nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan.
vkr.r
This rezoning application identifies the proposed project as being within the
Primary ;Residential Area (Shore Drive Corridor. Site # 1) and quotes from
page 89 of the City's Comprehensive Plan by stating that land use plan
policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on
"preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and
aesthetic quality of the surrounding stable neighborhoods." I fail to
understand how this project can preserve and protect the overall character
and aesthetic quality of the adjacent A-12 medium density nor the R-10 low-
density neighborhoods. On the contrary, the project proposes high density,
<comparable to an A-24 development with unlimited hei~tJe,~triction,
showing a 70-foot tall building.I'lP?:~~ development will be~Jri~e the density
of the A-12 property to the west,I,six times the density of the current zoning
and twice the height of any other structures within the immediate visible
area.
The Comprehensive Plan further states, on page 95 & 96, "The recent
history of development in the (Shore Drive) corridor has been
characterized by too high density on too small parcels of land, and the
Shore Drive Overlay Di~~rict is intended, in part, to restore the proper
balance." This proposed 86 unit condo project is precisely the type of
development to which this previous statement is referring - "too high
density on too small parcels of land." How could it be any more clear?
One of the major Objectives of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan is stated on
page 16 of the Plan" To protect and enhance the quality of residential
communities in the corridor." This objective is further reinforced on page
8 "New development and redevelopment in the (Shore Drive) area
should be oriented towards protection and enhancement of the
character of existing residential neighborhoods."
In the ULI Bayfront Study, on page 33, the study states "Many of the
communities (along Shore Drive) are made up of single-family homes
and should be protected from the intrusion of higher-density
development."
None of the three documents I've referenced, The ULI Bayfront Study, the
Shore Drive Corridor Plan nor the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, support this
proposed project and neither do I.
This high-density project will not improve the quality of life for citizens
along the Shore Drive corridor, so please don't allow it! !
Thank you.
Page 2 of 2
May 8, 2006
Mr. Robert J. Scott, Director
Planning Department
2405 Courthouse Drive
Building 2, Room 115
Virginia Beach, V A 23456-9013
Dear Mr. Scott:
At our January general meeting, the Baylake Pines Civic League voted to oppose the application of
Ocean Properties, L.L.c. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from- R-1 0 (SD) Residential
District to Conditional B-4 (SD) Mixed Use District on property located at 4856,4840,4848,4832
Shore Drive and 2209, 2213,2217,2216,2208 North Oliver Road (GPINs 14793746930000;
14793776110000; 14793756800000; 14793775880000; 14793757530000; 14793758630000;
14793769120000; 14793778500000; 14793777500000) scheduled for your meeting on May 10,2006.
This request will increase the current density to 86 units from the existing 9. Such a change would have
a very negative impact on our community regarding density, safety (via increased traffic), quality of life
(increased traffic and density), alteration of the character of the surrounding neighborhood (72 foot
proposed height will dwarf surrounding structures). Approval of this change would establish a very bad
precedent.
Please include our opposition to this re-zoning in your consideration of the application at the May 10,
2006 meeting.
Thank you,
Michelle Vachris, President
Baylake Pines Civic League
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6343
DATE: June 2,2006
TO:
FROM:
Leslie L. Lille':.\ll:\
B. Kay Wils6~
DEPT: City Attorney
DEPT: City Attorney
RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Ocean Properties LLC
The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by
the City Council on June 13, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated
September 14, 2005, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal
form. A copy of the agreement is attached.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter
further.
BKW /as
Enclosure
cc: Kathleen Hassen
PREPARED BY:
~ SYUS. ROURDON.
DI AlIrnN & lIVY. P.C
OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company
LEE R. TURNER, JR.
ANN ARGO DALE
KAREN S. ROULLET
JON R. FLOYD
PENELOPE H. SMITH, TRUSTEE OF THE PENELOPE H. SMITH REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST
ALAN D. CORDREY and SHERI L. HOWARD
STEVEN R. HUGHES a/k/ a STEVE HUGHES and EDITH M. HUGHES, husband
and wife
PENELOPE H. SMITH and KATHERINE A. JONES f/k/ a KATHERINE A. SMITH
TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS)
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 14th day of September, 2005, by and
between OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company,
Grantor, party of the fIrst part; LEE R. TURNER, JR., party of the second part,
Grantor, ANN ARGODALE, party of the third part, Grantor; KAREN S. ROULLET,
party of the fourth part, Grantor; JON R. FLOYD, party of the fIfth part, Grantor;
PENELOPE H. SMITH, TRUSTEE OF THE PENELOPE H. SMITH REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST, party of the sixth part, Grantor; ALAN D. CORDREY and SHERI
L. HOWARD, parties of the seventh part, Grantors; STEVEN R. HUGHES and
EDITH M. HUGHES, husband and wife, parties of the eighth part, Grantors;
PENELOPE H. SMITH and KATHERINE A. JONES, parties of the ninth part,
Grantors; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the tenth part.
GPIN: 1479-37-4693
1479-37-5680
1479-37-7611
1479-37-7588
1479-37-5753
1479-37 -5863
1479-37-6912
1479-37-7850
1479-37-7750
1
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a parcel of property
located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 14,505 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel
1 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said
parcel along 'with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together
referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of a parcel of property
located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 14,524 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel
2 in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said
parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together
referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the fourth part is the owner of a parcel of property
loca~ed in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 12,329 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel
3 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said
parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together
referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the fifth part is the owner of a parcel of property
located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 12,368 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel
4 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said
parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together
referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the parties of the sixth part is the owner of a parcel of property
located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 19,971 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel
5 in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said
PREPARED BY: parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together
IJIB STIIS. ROURDON,
mil AIlrnN & LM. P.C referred to as the "Property"; and
2
WHEREAS, the parties of the seventh part is the owner of a parcel of
property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 19,965 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel
6 in Exhibit" A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said
parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together
referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the parties of the eighth part is the owner of two (2) parcels of
property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
approximately 33,955 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcels
7 ahd 8 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Said parcels along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein
together referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the ninth part is the owner of a parcel of property
located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing
apPI:oximately 17,022 square feet which is more particularly described as Parcel
9 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said
parcel along with the other parcels hereinafter described are herein together
referred to as the "Property"; and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the
parcels described in Exhibit "A" and has initiated a conditional amendment to the
Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the
Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-10
Residential District to B-4 Mixed Use District (SD); and
WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly
development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land
development legislation; and
WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes
incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the
area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the
PREPARED BY, need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of
. lIB SYIa:S. ROURDON. the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to
..AllmN & 1M. P.c.
3
land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantors'
rezoning application gives rise; and
WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance
of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the Boo
4 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following
reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of
the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map
relative and applicable to the Property, which has a -reasonable relation to the
rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors,
personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or
interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the
Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or Quid pro
QUO for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval,
hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall
restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property
and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants
running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon
all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors,
personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or
title:
1. When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a coordinated
design and development of this mixed use site in terms of limited vehicular
access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the "CONCEPTUAL
SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIUMS
SHORE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA", dated 08/31/05, prepared by MSA, P.C.,
which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with
the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially
adhered to.
PREPARED BY:
I31BSYllS. ROURDON, 2. When the Property is redeveloped, vehicular ingress and egress shall
mil AHIRN & UVY. P.C
be via one (1) entrance from Shore Drive.
4
PREPARED BY,
~m SYKES. ROURDON.
mil AIlrnN & UVY. P.c.
3. The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept
Plan will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS - LAKE BRADFORD CONDOMINIUMS", which has been exhibited
to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach
Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials
shall be synthetic cedar shake siding, beaded vinyl and brick.
4. There will be no more than seventy-seven (77) residential units
within the building depicted on the Concept Plan.
5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed
Site Plan review and administration of applicable City _Codes by all cognizant City
agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements.
The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed
and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,
shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the
zonip.g of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions
shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if
the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new
or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The
conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the . time of
recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by
the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a
resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing
before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or
resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of
such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void.
The Grantor covenants and agrees that:
( 1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of
the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing
5
PREPARED BY,
~.m SYKt:s. ROURDON.
OJ AHrnN & lIVY. p,c.
conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that
any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal
action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or
prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or
proceeding;
(2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute
cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits
as may be appropriate;
(3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made
pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for
the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and
(4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the
existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the
ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for
pub!ic inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning
Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court
of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantor
and the Grantee.
6
PREPARED BY:
. IIIB sms, ROURDON.
.. AH[RN & uvY. P.c.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C.,
a Virginia limited liability company
By:
aging Member
v
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
(SEAL)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisd]lli day of
September, by David Terry, Managing Member of Ocean Properties, L.L.C., a
Virginia limited liability company. s;~.~
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: ~ la~\0t07
SM. El.LlOfT
f<<)TARY ABJC
COfA<<)tfNEALTH OF \lIRGINIA
flfCOMMlSSlON EXPIRES FEBRUARV28. m
7
PREPARED BY:
ft8 SYKiS. ROURDON.
mil AHiRN &. llVY. P.C
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Graryt;fr: /1 'I
~J!. r-rlL
Al1n Argodale7
(
(SEAL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
. \
- ~
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ;).3 - day of
September, 2005, by Ann Argodale, Grantor.
My Commission Expires:
c tQ-- ~~
NO~bIiC
o{3dcA
9
PREPARED BY:
~ SYKts. ROURDON.
mil AHrnN & 1M. P.c.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
~lUAA~~L~
Karen S. Roullet
(SEAL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
. ~
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this d..3 day of
September, 2005, by Karen S. Roullet, Grantor.
C t.Q~C~
Not Public
My Commission Expires: a( '3.l \ oq
10
PREPARED BY:
~ SYl([S. ROURDON.
mil AlIrnN &: LM. P.c.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Granto. f:-/ /Z'" (J.'"
, /' 1
,/ ../ /"
/ /'" /
1./ /
l./" (.-T 1-- _,-, /
./dOn Floyd ,(
/
/
(SEAL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
. rd
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ 3 -day of
September, 2005, by Jon Floyd, Grantor.
c)
c>r\ ~
~d
Not , . l)ublic
......--'"
My Commission Expires:
11
I'b
~.~
PREPARED BY:
IJIB miS, ROURDON.
aI AHmN & llVY. P.C
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
Grantor:
THE PENELOPE H. SMITH REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST
By: ../...,
'Penel pe H. Smith, Trustee
(SEAL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
td
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this d .~ day of
September, 2005, by Penelope H. Smith, Trustee of The Penelope H. Smith
Revocable Living Trust, Grantor.
My Commission Expires:
C~~~d ~~
NotaW Public
<o13tto4 '--'
12
PREPARED BY;
~ SYla:S. ROURDON.
DI AHrnN & 1M. p,c.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
Grantor:
()ioh1 &.1"1/~ /
Alan D. Cordrey I.
tJ;J^'~';1~~
Sheri L. Howard
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
:;;3,..d
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this --day of
September, 2005, by Alan D. Cordrey, Grantor.
My Commission Expires:
o ~(l~dC~,-~
Not~ blic
oC?:> i \ 0 C) "-
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,,:)3 1"-~ay of
September, 2005, by Sheri L. Howard, Grantor.
C'''t c r\ -'''\ ~
~2t::~~~
My Commission Expires: "6( 2> i' () 4
13
PREPARED BY:
~.m SYJ([S. BOURDON,
m AllrnN & lM, P.c.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
Grantor:
St-~~~. ~~
Steven R. Hughes.~)
9~~~
Edith M. Hughes
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
.J.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ;)3 ~ay of
September, 2005, by Steven R. Hughes and Edith M. Hughes, husband and wife,
Grantors.
c
IG~~~
Public
My Commission Expires: 013 (lOCI
14
PREPARED BY:
53m SYJ(ES. ROURDON.
- AIlrRN & lm'. P.C
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
(SEAL)
AL)
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: .
3t---d
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ -day of
September, 2005, by Penelope H. Smith, Grantor.
C'-) fr\ ~C'
~~
Notary blic
My Commission Expires: 'q 3> I } 04
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit:
'-)~I-d
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
September, 2005, by Katherine A. Jones, Grantor.
My Commission Expires:
15
PREPARED BY:
lIB sms. ROURDON.
m AIlIRN & UVY. P.C
EXHIBIT" A"
PARCEL 1:
ALL that certain lot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements
thereon, and the easements and appurtenances thereunto belonging, numbered
Shore Drive in Kempsville Magisterial District of the County of Princess Anne,
Virginia, and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the north line of the Public Highway, known as Shore
Drive, at the southwest comer of the said land herein conveyed and the land now or
formerly owned by F. B. Road, marked by an iron pin, which point of beginning is
distant 200 feet in a westerly direction from the north line of the said Shore Drive
and the west line of the Oliver Road and thence running in a northerly direction
along the said Roan's line 14 degrees 45 mins. East, 175 feet to the southem line of
Lot 5 marked by an iron pipe; thence in an easterly direction parallel with the north
line of said Shore Drive 100 feet to the west line of Lot 2 marked by an iron pin;
thence in a southerly direction parallel with the west line of the said Oliver Dive 175
feet to the north line of said Shore Drive marked by an iron pin; thence west along
the north line of said Shore Drive, 100 feet to a point marked by an iron pin the
point of beginning as aforesaid being Lot 1 as shown on that certain plat of
Bradford Terrace made by W. B. Gallup County Surveyor Apri118th, 1947, and duly
recorded.
GPIN: 1479-37-4693
PARCEL 2:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements
thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, formerly Princess Anne
County, Virginia, now numbered 4848 Shore Drive, formerly numbered 2110 Shore
Drive, Bayside, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lot Two
(2), Bradford Terrace duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 21, at Page 5, excepting therefrom
that portion of lot conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the widening of
Route 60, dated October 5, 1955, recorded May 14, 1956, duly recorded in said
Clerk's Office in Deed Book 446, at Page 198, as shown in Highway Plat Book 2, at
Page 119.
GPIN: 1479-37-5680
16
PREPARED BY:
IDB STI:t:s. ROURDON.
- MUm &. ll:VY. P.C
PARCEL 3:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements
thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining,
situate, lying and being in Bayside Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, State of
Virginia, and more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the northern line of the public highway, known as Shore
Drive at the northeasterly intersection of Oliver Drive, and running thence along the
easterly line of Oliver Drive, North Fourteen (14) degrees, Forty-Five minutes (45)
East, One Hundred Seventy-Five Feet (175) to a point; thence in an easterly
direction along the division line between Lots Three (3) and Nine (9), parallel with
the northern line of said Shore Drive, Eighty-Five Feet (85') to a point in the division
line between Lots Three (3) and Four (4); thence in a southerly direction parallel
with the east line of said Oliver Drive, One Hundred Seventy-Five Feet (175') to the
northern line of said Shore Drive; thence in a westerly direction along the northern
line of said Shore Drive, Eighty-Five Feet (85') to a point in the eastern line of said
Shore Drive, the point of beginning aforesaid, excepting therefrom that portion
which was conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia by Deed dated November 25,
1955 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia
Beach, Virginia, which Deed was recorded simultaneously with a photocopy of
Sheet #8, of a plan and survey of part of State Highway Route 60, Project #2175-
06-08-11, reference to which is made for a more particular description of the
portion to be excepted.
GPIN: 1479-37-7611
PARCEL 4:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, known, numbered and designated as
Lot Number Four (4), on the plat entitled, "BRADFORD TERRACE LOCATED ON
SHORE DRIVE, PRINCESS ANNE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, DATED APRIL 18, 1947,
MADE BY W.B. GALLUP, COUNTY SURVEYOR", and duly recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Princess Anne County, Virginia, in Map Book 21, at
Page 5.
LESS, SAVE AND EXCEPT a portion of property conveyed to the Commonwealth of
Virginia in Deed Book 538, at Page 164.
GPIN: 1479-37-7588
17
PREPARED BY,
53m SYf([S. ROURDON.
mil AHillN & lM. P.c.
PARCEL 5:
All of that certain lot, tract, piece and parcel of land, with the improvements
thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate, lying and being in the
County of Princess Anne, Virginia, known, numbered and designated as LOT
numbered FIVE (5), on PLAT OF BRADFORD TERRACE, recorded in the Clerk's
office of the Circuit Court of Princess Anne County, Virginia, in Map Book 21, at
Page 5, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description; said lot
fronting one hundred feet (1001 on the West side of Oliver Drive, and extending
back between para11ellines two hundred feet (2001-
GPIN: 1479-37-5753
PARCEL 6:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, together with the buildings and
improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying, situate and
being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and
designated as Lot Six (6), as shown on that certain plat entitled "PLAT OF
BRADFORD TERRACE", which said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 21, at Page 5.
GPIN: 1479-37-5863
PARCEL 7:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements
thereon and the easements and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise
appertaining, situate, lying and being in Kempsville Magisterial District of the
County of Princess Anne, State of Virginia, and more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at a point in the west line of Oliver Drive at the northeast comer of Lot
Six (6), which point is distant Three Hundred Seventy-Five Feet (3751 from the
northerly side of Shore Drive; thence running along the west side of Oliver Drive,
North Fourteen degrees (140), Forty-Five minutes (451 East to the line of the
property of the City of Norfolk, bordering on Lake Bradford; thence in a westerly-
northwesterly direction One Hundred Feet (1001, more or less, from the shore line
of said Lake Bradford, to a point in the Western boundary line of the said Grantors'
property, which point is distant Four Hundred Seventy-Five Feet (4751, more or
less, from the northerly side of said Shore Drive; thence South Fourteen Degrees
(140), Forty-Five Minutes (45) West One Hundred Feet (100) to the northwest
comer of Lot Six (6); thence in an easterly direction along the division line between
the Lot hereby conveyed and said Lot Six (6) Two Hundred Feet (200) to the
westerly side of said Oliver Drive, the point of beginning aforesaid.
18
Being Lot Seven (7) as shown on the Plat of Bradford Terrace, located on Shore
Drive, Princess Anne County, Virginia, made by W. B. Gallup, County Surveyor,
April 18, 1947, and recorded with the Deed from William W. Oliver and Alice M.
Oliver, his wife to Claude R. Hargis, et UX., bearing the date 17th day of July, 1947,
in Map Book 21, at Page 5, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the
County and State aforesaid.
Together with all and singular the buildings and improvements thereon, rights and
privileges, tenements, hereditaments, easements and appurtenances unto the said
land belonging or in anywise appertaining.
GPIN: 1479-37-6912
PARCEL 8:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the improvements thereon,
situated in Kempsville Magisterial District, and being in the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the east side of Oliver Drive at the Northwest comer of Lot
9, ~hich point is distant 275 feet from the northerly side of Shore Drive; thence
running along the East side of said Oliver Drive N. 14 deg. 45' East to the line of the
property of the City of Norfolk bordering on Lake Bradford; thence in an easterly-
southerly direction 100 feet, more or less, from the shore line of said Lake Bradford
to a point, the north-easterly comer of said Lot 9, distance 275 feet from the
northerly side of said Shore Drive; thence in a westerly direction along the division
line between the lot hereby conveyed and said Lot 9, 170 feet to the easterly side of
said Oliver Drive, the point of beginning aforesaid.
BEING Lot 8 as shown on the Plat of Bradford Terrace, located on Shore Drive, City
of Virginia Beach, Virginia, made by W.B. Gallup, Surveyors, April 18th, 1947 and
recorded in Map Book 21, at Page 5, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia.
GPIN: 1479-37-7850
PARCEL 9:
ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements
thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining,
situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach (formerly Princess Anne
PREPARED BY: County), Virginia, and more particularly bounded and described as follows:
~ SYK[S. ROURDON.
mil AIIfRN &. llVY. p,c. BEGINNING at a point in the East line of Oliver Drive distant one hundred seventy-
five feet (1751 from the northeastern intersection of said Oliver Drive and the Public
Highway lrnown as Shore Drive; thence running North fourteen degrees forty-five
19
minutes east along the east line of said Oliver Drive one hundred feet (100); thence
East one hundred seventy feet (170) to a point in the Norfolk City property line;
thence South parallel with the eastern side of said Oliver Drive one hundred feet
(100) to the dividing line between said Lot Nine (9) and Lot Four (4); thence west
parallel with the northern line of said Shore Drive one hundred-seventy feet (170)
to the Eastern side of said Oliver Drive, the point of beginning aforesaid. Said lot
being designated as LOT NUMBERED NINE (9) on that certain plat of Bradford
Terrace, located on Shore Drive Princess Anne County, VA (now Virginia Beach)
made by W. S. Gallup, County Surveyor, Apri118, 1947, and recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Princess Anne County (now Virginia Beach), Virginia,
in Map Book 21, at Page 5.
GPIN: 1479-37-7750
CONDITIONALREZONE/OCEANPROPERTIES/PROFFER
PREPARED BY:
IJBSYIrrS. ROURDON,
lID AIlrnN & lM. P.C
20
L. APPOINTMENTS
ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION
BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION
BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
BUILDING CODE OF APPEALS - New Construction
GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE - PPEA
MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL
OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY COMMITTEE
P ARKS AND RECREA nON COMMISSION
SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON ROADS
M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N. NEW BUSINESS
O. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
V
0 I
M B L
DATE: lune 6, 2006 C E S L
D C M R C A W
I 1 L A N R H N I
PAGE: I E D 0 A D D E M U L W
Z Y N N D 0 E I E S 0
AGENDA E E E A 0 R V D V 0 0
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L R S N X F E T A N D
I-A BRIEFINGS:
TOURISM ECONOMIC IMPACT lames Ricketts,
Director,
Convention and
Visitors Bureau
B SWIMMING ADVISORIES Update Charlie Meyer,
Chief Operating
Officer
11'111'
IVNI
IV/
V-E CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION CERTIFIED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y
F-l MINUTES - May 23. 2006 APPROVED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y A
B
S
T
A
1
N
E
D
G/H-I MAYOR'S PRESENTATION
1. PROCLAMATION FOR YEAR OF E. Dana Dickens,
REGIONAL CITIZENSHIP 1lI, President and
CEO, Hampton
Roads partnership
II Ordinance to AMEND City Code 918-65 re bail ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y
1-Ia bondsmen CONSENT
Ib Ordinances to AMEND City Code: ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y
918-49 re alcoholic beverages CONSENT
918-50 remixed beverages
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
V
0 I
M B L
DATE: June 6, 2006 C E S L
0 C M R C A W
I J L A N R H N I
PAGE: 2 E 0 0 A D 0 E M U L W
Z Y N N D 0 E [ E S 0
AGENDA E E E A 0 R V 0 V 0 0
ITEM # SUBJECf MOTION VOTE L R S N X F E T A N 0
2 Ordinance to AUTHORIZElDIRECT the City ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y
Manager to execute a Memorandum of CONSENT
Agreement re Hampton Roads Regional
Groundwater Mitigation Program
3 Resolution to AUTHORIZElDIRECT the City ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y
Manager to implement recommendations of the CONSENT
Shore Drive Safety Task Force.
4 Ordinance to DISSOL VElRECONSTITUTE ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y
Towing Advisory Board. CONSENT
5 Resolution to REFER to Towing Advisory ADOPTED, AS 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y
Board Ordinances re nonc:onsensual tows from AMENDED, BY
private Property/PoIic_e Department Wrecker List CONSENT
criteria revisions
6 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temp ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y
encroachments by Curtis E./Robyn M. Bailey CONSENT
into City's r-<l-W at 4532 Black Cove Road on
Lake Joyce re
docklpileslexistinglbuIkheadJriprap.
DISTRICf 4 - BA YSIDE
7 Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $7,441 from ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y
NotfoIk Foundation to Library FY 2005-06 CONSENT
Operating Budget re access to online databases.
ADD Recess to Closed Session @ 6:47 PM APPROVED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y
ON
ADD Certified Closed Session at 7:4 I PM re Personnel CERTIFIED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y A Y Y Y
ON and Publicly Held Property
K APPOINTMENTS RESCHEDULED B Y C 0 N S E N S U S
ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION
BEACHES AND W A TERW A YS
COMMISSION
BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY
COMMmEE
GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE
INVESTMENT PAR1NERSHIP ADVISORY
COMMmEE - PPEA
OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY
COMMmEE
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON
ROADS
HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICf REAPPOINTED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y A Y Y Y
COMMISSION - HRPDC
Hany E. Diezel
Tenn: 2 years - 07/0112006- 06/3012008 Louis R. Jones
Meyera Obemdotf
APPOINTED
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
V
0 I
M B L
DATE: June 6, 2006 C E S L
D C M R C A W
I J L A N R H N I
PAGE: 3 E D 0 A D D E M U L W
Z Y N N D 0 E I E S 0
AGENDA E E E A 0 R V D V 0 0
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L R S N X F E T A N D
Term: Unexpired thru 06/3012007 Barbara M.
Henley
Term: 2 years - 07/0112006- 0613012008 John E. Uhrin
MEAL TAX TASKFORCE APPOINTED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y A Y Y Y
No term Robert M. Dyer-
City Council
Ron A.
Villanueva -
City Council
Rita Sweet
Bellitto -
Virginia
Beach City
Schools
- Delegate John
Welch
Bill Brown -
Member of
Minority
Business
Council
Patricia Phillips -
Director of
Finance or
Designee
Chris Savvides,
Hu Odom,
Mike Standing
- Restaurant
Assoc.
Mike Kreider-
Hotel/Motel
Assoc.
Sanford Cohen -
Central
Business
District
Stephen Romine-
Chamber of
Commerce
MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL REAPPOINTED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y A Y Y Y
Term: 2 years - 06/0112006- 05/3112008 William R Brown
Daniel Pearsall
No term Louisa M.
Strayhorn -
Governor's
Liaison
RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION APPOINTED 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y A Y Y Y
Tenn: Unexpired thru 1213112007 Richard A.
Maddox
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
V
0 I
M B L
DATE: June 6, 2006 C E S L
D C M R C A W
I J L A N R H N I
PAGE: 4 E D 0 A D D E M U L W
Z y N N D 0 E I E S 0
AGENDA E E E A 0 R V D V 0 0
ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L R S N X F E T A N D
SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD APPOINTED 9-0 y y y y y A y A Y y y
Term: 4 years- 07/0112006- 06/3012010 Susan Parker
TIDEWATER COMMUNITY COLLEGE APPOINTED 9-0 y y y y y A Y A Y y Y
BOARD
Term: 4 years - 07/0112006- 06/3012010 Bruce Meyer
TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME REAPPOINTED 9-0 y y y y y A Y A y Y y
COMMISSION
George B. Chafee,
Term: 4 years - 07/0112006- 0613012010 Jr,
TOWING ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTED 9-0 y y y y y A Y A y y y
Term: 3 years - 06/0112006- 05/3112009 Ernest Cooper-
Towing
IndustJy
Louis Ochave -
Citizen
Police Chief or
Designee
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT REAPPOINTED 9-0 y y y y y A Y A Y y Y
COMMISSION OF HAMPTON ROADS-
TIDe James L. Wood
Term: 2 years - 07/0112006- 0613012008 APPOINTED
John E. Uhrin
UM/ ADJOURNMENT 7:45 PM
N
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 6:35 - 6:46 pm 2 speakers
CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS RESCHEDULED
July 4, 2006
ALL SESSIONS CANCELED
July II, 2006
Briefing, Infonnal and Fonnal Sessions
July 18, 2006
Briefing, Infonnal and Fonnal Sessions
July 19 - August 7,2006
City Council Vacation
August 8, 2006
Resume Regular Schedule