The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJULY 18, 2006 AGENDA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MAYORMEYERA. E. OBERNDORF. At-Large VICE MAYOR WUIS R. JONES. Bayside - District 4 WILLIAM R. DESTEPH. At.Large HARRY E. DIEZEL, Kempsville - District 2 ROBERT M DYER.. CentervjJle - District I BARBARA M. HENLEY. Princess Anne - District 7 REBA S. McCLANAN. Rose Hall- District 3 JOHN E. UHRIN. Beach - District 6 RON A. VIllANUEVA, At-Large ROSEMARY WlLSON. At-Lorge JAMES 1. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA cm MANAGER -JAMES K. SPORE cm AITORNEY - LESLIE L. ULLEY CiTY CLERK - RtrrH HOWES SMlTH. MMC 18 JULY 2006 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - 3:30 PM A. GREENMARKET AT TOWN CENTER Jack Whitney, Director, Department of Agriculture II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS m. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS N. INFORMAL SESSION CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE:(757) 385-4303 FAX (757) 385-5669 E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com - Conference Room - 4:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Rolfe Carawan President, Life Matters Ministries 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. 2. SPECIAL FORMAL SESSION INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS June 30, 2006 July 11, 2006 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA I. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES 1. Resolution re issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Lancaster County for Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 for the Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School. 2. Resolution to APPOINT Kari Ann Kopnicky to the position of Assistant City Attorney. 3. Ordinance to AMEND the FY 2006-07 Sheriff Department's Special Revenue Operating Budget in the amount of $952,556 to establish four (4) new positions. 4. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $10,192 from the Hampton Roads Squadron Association of Naval Aviation to the Police Department's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget re the Oceanfront Camera replacement project. J. PLANNING 1. Applications of MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., re the development of a residential community with forty-nine (49) single-family lots at 2217 Matthews Green: DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE a. Chanf!e of Zoninf! District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural District to Conditional R-20 Residential District with a PD-H2 Overlay b. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of portions of Mathews Green east of Princess Anne Road RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 2. Variances re lot size to ~4.4(b) ofthe Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirement of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO): DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN a. C and C DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., at 200 60th Street re construction of three (3) single-family dwellings RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL b. JESSUP CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., at 973 Little Neck Road re two (2) single- family parcels RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 3. Variances for THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE at 1808 N anneys Creek Road: DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE a. ~5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations re one (1) new dwelling, drainfield, well site and gravel drive b. ~4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirement of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) due to low elevations RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 4. Application of EVERETTE L. BROWN for a Conditional Use Permit re bulk storage and automotive repair facility at 1305 and 1309 Virginia Beach Boulevard. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 5. Application of CUSTOM GRANITE MANUFACTURING CO. for a Conditional Use Permit re a bulk storage yard at 3488 Chandler Creek Road. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 6. Application of ROBERT D. VOOGT for a Conditional Use Permit re a facility for the cognitively impaired at 1851 and 1853 Old Donation Parkway. DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL K. APPOINTMENTS BEACHES AND W A TERW A YS COMMISSION BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE BUILDING CODE OF APPEALS - New Construction BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD EASTERN VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE - PPEA SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON ROADS L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS M. NEW BUSINESS N. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS RESCHEDULED July 19 - August 7, 2006 August 8, 2006 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 07/II/2oo6mb www.vbgov.com 1. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - 3:30 PM A. GREENMARKET AT TOWN CENTER Jack Whitney, Director, Department of Agriculture II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:30 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Rolfe Carawan President, Life Matters Ministries 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. 2. SPECIAL FORMAL SESSION INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS June 30, 2006 July 11,2006 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION .tsnlutinu 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 or considered by Virginia Beach City CounciL H. CONSENT AGENDA I. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES 1. Resolution re issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Lancaster County for Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 for the Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School. 2. Resolution to APPOINT Kari Ann Kopnicky to the position of Assistant City Attorney. 3. Ordinance to AMEND the FY 2006-07 Sheriff Department's Special Revenue Operating Budget in the amount of $952,556 to establish four (4) new positions. 4. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $10,192 from the Hampton Roads Squadron Association of Naval Aviation to the Police Department's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget re the Oceanfront Camera replacement project. ,(~~1(i1~%(!J~\ \:t~<P) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Appointing Kari Ann Kopnicky to the Position of Assistant City Attorney MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Background: Section 2-166 of the City Code provides that "[t]he city council may, from time to time, upon recommendation of the city attorney, appoint such deputy and assistant city attorneys as it may deem necessary to serve at the pleasure of the city attorney." . Considerations: The Resolution appoints Kari Ann Kopnicky as an Assistant City Attorney, effective August 1, 2006, to fill a vacancy in the office. Ms. Kopnicky will represent the Social Services Division of the Human Services Department. . Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution. . Attachments: Resolution Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution Submitting Department/Agency: City Attar. f \ City Manager: 1 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING KARl ANN KOPNICKY TO 2 THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 3 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 4 VIRG INIA : 5 That, pursuant to ~ 2-166 of the Code of the City of Virginia 6 Beach, Kari Ann Kopnicky is hereby appointed as an Assistant City 7 Attorney, effective August I, 2006. 8 Ado~ted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 9 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: f~ City AttorneY~ffiCe CAI0090 H:\GG\Ordres\Appoint Kopnicky Res.doc R-l July 12, 2006 * r~ )j1oY0S:;;~V$/~~o/~~~ ~N~ ~'l ~" "....~~~~~~'\~?/// ~~ ~'i1 ~ ~~g <>a~'~>'~<? ~/~~~/ ~~.~~.~))~....,.~ \)'~ ~O ~W;> E :t+f' .." /'J'!} 'J '.; '~" . '~~ f '~{7 (:. 'r .-- ":-..~ ;r-. ~" ~ M' /' ~, . '"i<, (\ '.~"' )(9'~~ .- -' ;J '0' .~ ~A ,):~~'/ :.~' ,,~~ S\Oh ~J"'/~ ~ ~ ?A;?~/ ~ S~<> ~ ~~0~, ~bY" '/. . "" VA <;1(/' :-; ~___ ~ . .:.!.~~r 'J! /,...:~ ~/ J s R'J: .f. ;yo ~-lr~. ~ ~'lIt ~. N ,.."...ei::tr, .<. ~:\.Y'//> I ~ a;~, ~ ~ ;'~'~~"'~~~'i : 'f.,,' ~(~~~: ~ ~~ '~~:d~~t(!pr~~~)~~~ :l: ./ ~ " ,"A /~~.;. ..' \~~!/X' ~A: ~vo~cr. \ '\~r~'V) ~J u: ~ j ~ () '/ /~ v, / , j;C7) " ~ -:~ ~ L. ~ " fI' ~W~"'\.W ~ O://." ., )1'/ ~~. ;;- ~.~~F '({}'XJ ~~V />.- A C\.I." I /.' ~ ,'I,/. p.:;' !~. ~'-f ~ " ~' ....1(1 / V, (J ~~' /" <;) ,';.'.~ /~C ':7" ~~\:: l<<' v.,,~ "'\.~ "Ef;ZJ , /) '>" ~~i,. 'i, /:{:~'../~8;:~' ';~..~, " .~ ) - f", ~ ':,.<;:;) ". =--.:7, ~~V X ~W " ~ .ft; (J I ./ LJ ~~~.~/ ,"'''')< N. . ~&'Y..' tr.',. '. <I'~ ,~1f>.~~~: ~~:.~~.> ';'~~Y .? ~ /9('"~ ~ ~,~<..r;;>~) ~ . .;~~'~~/~~/</~,~ ~/ ~<<;li~.~/L.~^ 'AI:,-i.. ~/~,-'~ \~ ~'~>Xl' ~~ 'Vyr.:r;:" ,:S~. )~ ., / d ,>iI\~.~. ./ .~~..... .~ <: ' ~ ~ ':~~~~ ~~; ~",~>' V,i' ;~~~~~~ ""'., "" .: 'w.-, ';1 / ~. ". '-~'1!.~ 00 1\\:' "<',., '< I", <~~, fC7 :-">:<"" I ~ ~ '''~:':~:~_'' V. v--::; "''''''~' ";C;' 0> '<~~~~ ~ " t"'(\ 0 ". "'"). .,,~ W '., " " ~' ~ '.~. "l .J!'il!i'" \ \. 0 V .....~.,,~. " ~'*': ~\ ' ""' H \;" :.:f' ""''':3(~:'", . \\ \ (.() <0 ". ~ <0 \.~ 10 C> '<~;~~'" ~:~~~\ \> OO~ ~:~ ~A~\ .~~ \~, (i" ~~, ~ ?(f)W:i> ~~ \ \~ ~~ . ~\ ~~ A<fk y~ " \ '~.~y~ '.9" \3'9 ~ 0 ~~~ h~~~ /$~t> \~.\ () ~~~~ \~ ~~'~, '() ~ V :.<\ ('\ O~ \a' ~\, ." ~ ~"" ,~. \0 vr . '0.. ?(f~" \~, " "~. ~,~.. 0 ~ '. 0 0> ~ ~ ~ ~'<:\"', Q,. ~\~ \) .,~~ ~ ~8 ( .) ~ ~t~~v\5, <2~"~' ~ ~...~~0~~:Sc, ~ ~~. LOCATION MAP ~;' BISHOP SULUVAN CA!HOLlC HIGH ,SCHO<?L >~,'~ c:t~ -', ~ \>\~~:~/'~/lf' '~~.", ,\<.~\ ~,'.',/~;~':; ',' (!:J~~!f O~~~l Q \( ,'>~. \ \~~::~:/"'/ ~~V/ b <02or^\?oJ.\" 800 ") '\\~~~~,'~~~> ... . /'.(K/7() · . Feet 1""" \\"<).," ';:(V' /;>". ,', 'j /. ',M <> o ~ ..,,;:, f\ '\> ,'/ I I I ./ ~ ". '~ ,1 ,<L,. 4 "\ r ;-"'",,~ '~1~ -;'~::~.. :',~~i{r. , . \\\ ;.'''.'', , ....~~ ;;~:i1~~:{:4'c , "",,-~_ il/" _._~~. . / @~. .~'~~ l/ ~....~~~'; ~,'" r-. ~.-<\ I ~ Y ./'/ 0~, () .;; ~&,d . '/.20 ,~d / / (j 90 eJ / \j O{/ i~);~S0CD~ / :\ f'../ ~ ~~ ;; Prepared by P,W.lEng.lEng. Support Services Bureau 7/10/06 X:\Projects\ARC Files\Agenda Maps\Bishop Sullivan Catholic HS ~i'ii~, ~-:~~)b ~~~_'Ot~l (~{~":~ c. ... ..) ('j," ~rj ~... ~....,J 4..:-~~....~"~ '~~ ,~ --- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ) ~ ITEM: A Resolution concurring with and approving the issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Lancaster County, Virginia of its revenue bond in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 for Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 Background: The City of Virginia Beach has been asked to consider the request of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia (the "Applicant") for concurrence with the issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Lancaster County, Virginia (the "Lancaster County Authority") of up to $2,700,000 in Bank-Qualified revenue bonds to assist the Applicant in (i) paying a portion of the costs of the refinancing, construction and equipping of athletic, library and classroom facilities at Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School (collectively, the "Project") located at 4552 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia; and (ii) paying certain costs of issuance relating to the bonds. The City of Virginia Beach Development Authority is unable to provide "Bank- Qualified" financing to the Applicant. Bank-Qualified bonds are a type of municipal bond issued by jurisdictions that issue less than $10 million of tax- exempt bonds in a calendar year. Bank-Qualified bonds are specifically excluded from the multi-jurisdictional bond fee policy adopted by the Virginia Beach Development Authority. Considerations: The matter comes before Council for its approval pursuant to ~ 15.2-4905 of the Code of Virginia which requires the City Council to concur with the issuance of the bonds by the Lancaster County Authority. Public Information: The request was duly advertised on June 5 and June 12, 2006 for publiC hearing before the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority, which has adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the issuance of the bonds. Alternatives: Not approve, which would result in the bonds not being issued for the Project. Recommendations: Approval Attachments: IDP Submission to Council Location Map Resolution for City of Virginia Beach Affidavit to Publication and Notice Notice of Public Hearing Record of Public Hearing Development Authority's Resolution Disclosure Statement Authority's Statement Fiscal Impact Statement Summary Sheet Letter from Department of Economic Development dated June 20,- 2006 Concurrence Resolution from the Industrial Development Authority of Lancaster County, Virginia APPROVAL Submitting Department/Agency: Development Authority City Manager: (J~~ V:IaPPlicaliODS\citylawprod\CYCOm32\~pdok~1 lOOO17511.DOC VIRGINIA BE.~CH Virginia Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue. Suite 1000 Virginia Beach. VA 23462 (757) 385-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Website: www.vbgov.com June 20, 2006 The Honorable Meyera E. Obemdorf, Mayor Members of City Council Municipal Center Virginia Beach, V A 23456 Re: Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School Concurring Revenue Bonds Dear Mayor Obemdorf and Members of City Council: We submit the following in connection with Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School located at 4552 Princess Anne Road in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. (1) Evidence of publication of the notice of hearing is attached as Exhibit A, and a summary of the statements made at the public hearing is attached as Exhibit B. The City of Virginia Beach Development Authority's (the "Authority") resolution recommending Council's approval is attached as Exhibit C. (2) The Disclosure Statement is attached as Exhibit D. (3) The statement of the Authority's reasons for its approval as a benefit for the City of Virginia Beach and its recommendation that City Council approve the bonds described above is attached as Exhibit E. (4) The Fiscal Impact Statement is attached as Exhibit F. (5) Attached as Exhibit G is a summary sheet setting forth the type of issue, and identifying the Project and the principals. The Honorable Meyera E. Obemdorf, Mayor Members of City Council June 20, 2006 Page 2 (6) Attached as Exhibit H is a letter from the appropriate City department commenting on the Project. (7) Attached as Exhibit I is an Inducement Resolution from the Lancaster County, Virginia. v. f!irulY yo~. _J ... 1 p~ Pag . Lea Vice-Chair A WS/mlg Enclosures X:\OlD\REAL EST ATElDEV AUTH\BOND\WORK\DA1561 Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School\DA Council Ltr City & Other Funds.doc 1 A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH AND APPROVING 2 THE I SSUANCE BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 3 AUTHORITY OF LANCASTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, OF 4 ITS REVENUE BOND IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 5 $2,700,000 FOR BISHOP SULLIVAN CATHOLIC HIGH 6 SCHOOL 7 8 9 WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Lancaster 10 County, Virginia (the Lancaster County Authority), has considered 11 the plans of Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School, a component of 12 the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia (the _Borrower), whose 13 educational facility (the School) is located at 4552 Princess 14 Anne Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, for the issuance of 15 the Lancaster County Authority's revenue bond (the Bond) in an 16 amount not to exceed $2,700,000 to assist the Borrower in 17 refinancing the construction and equipping of athletic, library 18 and classroom facilities at the School (collectively, the 19 Project), located at 4552 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, 20 Virginia; 21 WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bond will also finance the cost 22 of issuing the Bond; 23 WHEREAS, the Lancaster County Authority has held a public 24 hearing with respect to the Bond on May 31, 2006, and has adopted 25 an approving resolution (the Lancaster County Authority 26 Resolution) with respect thereto; 27 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority 28 (the Virginia Beach Authority), has held a public hearing with 29 respect to the Bond on June 20, 2006, and has adopted an 30 approving resolution recormnending that the City Council of the 31 City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the Council), concur with the 32 Lancaster County Authority Resolution; and 33 WHEREAS, as the Project is located in Virginia Beach and the 34 Virginia Beach Authority is in existence and has the power to 35 issue bonds for the Project, Section 15.2-4905 of the Code of 36 virginia of 1950, as amended (the Virginia Code), provides that 37 the Council must concur with the adoption of the Lancaster County 38 Authority Resolution; 39 WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the 40 Code), provides that the highest elected governmental officials 41 of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in 42 which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity 43 bonds is located shall approve the issuance of such bonds; and 44 WHEREAS, the members of the Council constitute the highest 45 elected governmental officials of the City of virginia Beach; and 46 WHEREAS, a copy of the Lancaster County Authority 47 Resolution, the Virginia Beach Authority's approving resolution, 48 a reasonably detailed summary of the cormnents expressed at the 49 public hearing wi th respect to the Bond held by the Virginia 50 Beach Authority and a statement in the form prescribed by Section 51 15.2-4907 of the virginia Code have been filed with the Council; 52 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 53 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 54 1. The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 55 Virginia, concurs with the adoption of the Lancaster County 56 Authority Resolution and approves the issuance of the Bond by the 57 Lancaster County Authority to the extent required by the Code and 58 Section 15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code. 59 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bond, as required 60 by the Code and Section 15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code, does not 61 constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bond 62 of the creditworthiness of the Borrower and the Bond shall 63 provide that the City of Virginia Beach shall not be obligated to 64 pay the Bond or the interest thereon or other costs incident 65 thereto and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of 66 the Commonwealth of Virginia or the City of Virginia Beach shall 67 be pledged thereto. 68 3 . This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its 69 adoption. 70 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 71 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. CA10002 v :\applications\citylawprod\cyt;om32\ WpdocslDO 1 OIPOO 1\000 175 12.DOC R-1 July 10, 2006 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL s~ Clty Attorney The Virginian~Pilot --------------------~_._--------------------------~------------------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I LINE I I I ~---------T------------------------ JUN-19-2006 14:35 THE VIRGINIAN PILOT Exhibit A Ta~ VIRGINIAN-PILOT NORFOLK, VIRGINIA AFFIDAVIT OP PUBLICATIOn I<A~ Ot CANOLES. SUITE :aoo 150 W MAI:N ST NORFOLK VA 23510 P.c. REFERENCE: 10236406 15245065 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA State of virginia City of Norfolk This day, Dreama ~ohnson personally appeared before me and after being duly sworn, made oath that: 1} She is affidavit clerk of The Virginian-Pilot, a newspaper published by Landmark Communications Inc., in the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, Common- wealth of Vi~9inia and in the state of North Carolina 2}That the advertisement hereto annexed has been published in said newspaper on the date stated. PUBLISHED ON: 06/05 06/12 TOTAL COST: FILED ON: 757 446 2077 P.02 NonCE OF fIllBLle HEARING ON PR0- POSED IN~IAI:OEVELOPMENT REV- ENUE BOND FINANCiNG BY THE INDUS- TRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF lANCASTER .COUNtY. VIRGINIA, FOR BISHOP SUWVAN CA~OUC HIGH SCHOOL ~ is IIaefly given ~ tile Cl1:v of Viriinie Beacll Devet- . llprnf:nt Authori\y (the AuIIlonlY) WIlOll& ldIrll8s is 222 C.... 1\"" Pll!\< A_e. SUlI8lC1OO. 'liI'gi(Iie Beach. VllJinia 23462, :....11 hOlll ~ P\l~qC he\lr"1Illl en lI1e Qlan of l'8IiIlencu''C of Bishop 'S\ltlivan ~ HWI SC:!I00l. a ~ Df \tie ~Iic 01_6& of Ric:Ilmoncl. Vir;inie ~ 801'tawe.l. ....""" ~ tlonal fe<:ilib' (\he SChool) i6 ICQ~ at 4552 Princ:C$$ ""~ ; R08Il, Vi~e El6ac11. V...illia 23482. for \he i$$U~_ ~ tile 'IndU$trIaI Ile'oeIoQment lIuthotiV of 1..lI~ Counly. VIr- ! &lnla (llle l.8ncaater AutllCltilrl. 01 it<. mnonuc bclo1~ lt1 en 'amcont not to e:ccM<I 52.700;000 Ie ass"'! 1~ Borrower In (el ,e"nencin& the COI'llStl'uCticn lIIId equipping of lItllllltiC. library snd cla_M fecflities 1Il ~ bQQl (<:otlectlY8ly, ,\he PrOject) IoC8tl!d III 4652 Prille~ Amc lloa<!. V1~nl8 Beacn. V~o'\ia. ..lld, (bl l>>l'iItg thlI CO$\ of 1&6IlInll1he lIonel. The Pr6jct;t i$ owned toy tile Bofrower, TIle IlUCIiC heefong. whidl ~y be CQntInueCl or Illioume<l. Will be IleId..\ 8:30 8.m. an J\IM 20, 2006, b&fOle lI1e AUt/lority in ~ COI'lfet'er'oee _ at 1\5 <ll'rlCe. TIle bOnds will not Pledge till! c.cdil or tnc !M- ine llOWIr of lIIe Cil,y of VHt;iI'Iia Been, V\f&Inill. or the AulIlOr. II)' bUt will ~ ~Ie $DIety from ~ C_trom tile COtl'lIlfllly. Ant per.son i~ In VIe 1$8IllRe 01 tJ\8 botIds .r'the lcx:a\ion O' nlll\l~ of1he PrO)9Ct mllJl8ll1l88l' Io'ICI be heard.. A copy of the f')$()IlItJOO to'De CO<l8iCl8<ell b)' lIIe AutI10rily Ilf\<;. tile Il\IllIIC l188rIn& willlle on 1ilEI and gpen fOr in$~ lit \he AuthorItY's 0If'108 clu~ng buSil'leS8 I\our$ ",.." to 1t1C public he8~Jli, CI'JY Of VIRGINIA BEACH DeVELOPMENT AUlHORlTY 'VP June 6, 2006 :l.524~~ state on the day and year expires January 31, 2008 TOTAL P.02 Exhibit B CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RECORD OF PUBLIC HEARING 2006 REVENUE BOND (BISHOP 'SULLIV AN CA TIlOLIC mGH SCHOOL PROJECn At 8:40 am. on June 20, 2006, the Chainnan of the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority") announced the commencement of a public hearing on the refmancing request of Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School (the "School"), and that a notice of public hearing was published once a week for two consecutive weeks in The VirlJinian-Pilot. the second publication being not less than six (6) days nor more than twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing. The Chairman indicated that a copy of the notice and a certificate of publication of such notice have been filed with the records of the Authority and will be provided to the Clerk of the City C;ouncil of the City of Virginia Beach. . The following individual appeared and addressed the Authority: Mr. George Consolvo appeared on behalf of the School. Mr. Consolvo described the revenue bonds of School which will be utilized to assist the School in (a) refmancing the construction and equipping of athletic, library and classroom facilities at the School located at 4552 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and (b) paying the cost of issuing the bond. Mr. Consolvo further added that it is necessary under federal and Virginia law that the Authority hold a public hearing and that the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Lancaster County, Virginia, be approved by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach. No other persons appeared to address the Authority and the Chairman closed the public hearing. The Authority then adopted a resolution (a) recommending that the Council of the City of Virginia Beach approve the issuance of the bonds in an amount up to $2,700,000, (b) directing the transmission of a Fiscal Impact Statement with respect to the bonds to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach and (c) requesting that its recommendation be received at the next regular or special meeting at which this matter can be properly placed on the Council's agenda for hearing. 0_. ~~. ::ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCSNFK\1070646\1 Exhibit C RESOLUTION OF CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR BISHOP SULLN AN CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL WHEREAS, there has been described to the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the Authority), the plan of refinancing of Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School, a component of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia (the Borrower), whose educational facility and place of business (the School) is located at 4552 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, by the issuance by the Industrial Drvelopment Authority of Lancaster County, Virginia (the Lancaster County Authority), of its revenue bond in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 (the Bond) to assist the Borrower in (a) refinancing the construction and equipping of athletic, library and classroom facilities at the School (collectively, the Project), located at 4552 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and (b) paying the cost of issuing the Bop.d; WHEREAS, the Project is owned by the Borrower and is located in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to the Bond as required by Virginia law and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), was held by the Lancaster County Authority on May 31, 2006, and thereafter the Lancaster County Authority adopted a resolution (the Lancaster County Authority Resolution) approving the issuance of the Bond; WHEREAS, the Borrower has elected to proceed with a plan of refinance pursuant to which the Bond will be privately placed with SunTrust Bank for its own account and for investment purposes; WHEREAS, the Borrower in its appearance before the Authority has described the debt service cost savings relating to the issuance of the Bond as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" within the meaning of ~265(b)(3) of the Code and the educational benefits to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to be derived from the issuance of the Bond; WHEREAS, the Authority will not be able to issue "qualified tax-exempt obligations" in calendar year 2006; and WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to the Bond as required by Virginia law and the Code has been held at this meeting; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the issuance of the Bond will promote education in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, benefit its inhabitants and promote their safety, health, welfare, convenience and prosperity. 2. To assist the Borrower to issue the Bond, the Authority hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the Council), concur with the Lancaster County Authority Resolution approving the Bond, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, as required by ~ 15.2-4905 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the Virginia Code), and hereby directs the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority to submit to the Council the statement in the form prescribed by ~ 15.2-4907 of the Virginia Code, a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing held at this meeting pursuant to ~ 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code, and a copy of this resolution. 3. All costs and expenses in connection with the refinancing plan shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bond to the extent permitted by law or from funds of the Borrower and the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 4. All acts of the officers of the Authority which are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bond are hereby approved and confirmed. 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The undersigned hereby certify that the above resolution was duly adopted by a majority of the directors of the Economic Development Authority of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, at a meeting duly called and held pursuant to notice given pursuant to the Authority's bylaws on June 20, 2006, and at which a quorum was present throughout and that such resolution is in full force and effect on the date hereof. Dated: "Su..("\.e.... 1- 0 , 2006 -w ~_.:\.. v_~~.. Chairman, City of VirgO Ia Beach Development Authority ::ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCSNFK\\ 060395\\ 2 Exhibit D DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Date: June 20, 2006 Applicant's Name(s): Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School All Owners (if different from applicant): NtA Type of Application: Rezoning: From To Conditional Use Permit: Street Closure: Subdivision Variance: Other: Bond issue through Industrial Development Authority of Lancaster County, Virginia ****************************************************************************** The foJlowing is to be completed by or for the Applicant: 1. If the applicant is a CORPO~TION, list all the officers of the Corporation: See attached schedule. ...2. If the applicant is a P ARTNERSHlP, FlRM or other Unincorporated Organization, list all . members or partners in the organization: Nt A . . The following is to be completed by or for the Owner (if different from the 'applicant) 1. If the Owner is a CORPORATION, list all the officers of the Corporation: NtA 2. If the Owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM or other Unincorporated Organization, list all members or partners in the organization: Nt A IC IDGH SCHOOL By: Dennis Price, Acting Principal ::ODMA \PCDOCS\DOCSNFK.\1073664\1 Exhibi t E VIRGINIA BEP,.CH Department of Economic Developmenl 222 Central Park Avenue. Suite 1000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (757) 437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Website: www.vbgov.com E-mail: ecdev@vbgov.com INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF LANCASTER COUNTY, V A BISHOP SULLN AN CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL REVENUE BOND The Authority recommends approval of the captioned financing. The financing will benefit the citizens of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by providing improved educational social and recreational facilities which promotes the health and welfare of the City's Citizens. Exhibit F flSCALIMPACTSTATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The undersigned applicant, in order to pennit Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School, a component of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia to submit the following infonnation in compliance with Section 15.2-4907 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, states: Name of applicant: Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School, a component of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia Facility: 4552 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, V A 23462 1. Maximum amount of financing sought $2,700,000 2. Estimated taxable value of facility's real property to be constructed in the locality N/A 3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates N/A 4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates N/A 5. Estimated merchant's capital tax per year using present tax rates N/A 6. a. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased fromVirginia companies within the locality $723,400 b. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $175,000 c. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $448,650 d. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $53,000 7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis (FTE) 60 8. Average annual salary per employee $38,425 Dated: June 20, 2006 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORlTY By: ~ ,,-,{.J v LL..:...__ Chainnan , ./' BISHOP SULLIVAN CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL, a component 9~e Catholic DiOCeZ~RiChmOnd, Virginia I f \ U / V( j" ~~\-' Acting Principal By: ::ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCSNFK\1060392\2 FISCAL IMP ACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The undersigned applicant, in order to permit Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School, a component of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia to submit the following information in compliance with Section 15.2-4907 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, states: Name of applicant: Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School, a component of the Catholic Diocese of Riclunond, Virginia Facility: 4552 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 1. Maximum amount of fmancing sought $2,700,000 2. Estimated taxable value of facility's real property to be constructed in the locality N/A 3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates N/A 4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax. rates N/A 5. Estimated merchant's capital tax per year using present tax rates N/A 6. a. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $723,400 b. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $175,000 c. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $448,650 d. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $53,000 7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis (FTE) 60 8. Average annual salary per employee $38,425 Dated: June 20, 2006 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: ~ .....(.L v t^/"/ Chainnan BISHOP SULI)Y AN CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL, a componen~6fth~ Catholic Dioces~clunond, Virginia (I i // J/ By: /~ ~ Acting Principal ::ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCSNFK\1060392\2 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The undersigned applicant, in order to permit Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School, a component of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia to submit the following information in compliance with Section 15.2-4907 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, states: Name of applicant: Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School, a component of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia Facility: 4552 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, V A 23462 1. Maximum amount of fmancing sought $2,700,000 2. Estimated taxable value offacility's real property to be constructed in the locality N/A 3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates N/A 4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates N/A 5. Estimated merchant's capital tax per year using present tax rates N/A 6. a. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $723,400 b. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $175,000 c. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $448,650 d. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality $53,000 7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis (FTE) 60 8. Average annual salary per employee $38,425 Dated: June 20, 2006 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By ~--A.J -:~_ Chairman BISHOP SULLIVAN CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL, a component ~ e Catholic DK.ocese 0 Richmond, Virginia ! ! - ;' . / By: - Acting Principal ::ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCSNFK\1060392\2 Exhibit G SUMMARY SHEET CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CONCURRENCE WITH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUnIORITY OF LANCASTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA REVENUE BOND 1. PROJECT NAME: Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School 2. LOCATION: 4552 Princess Anne Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Educational facilities 4. AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUE: $2,700,000 5. PRlNCIP ALS: See attached list of officers and trustees 6. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: a. Present zoning classification of the Property b. Is rezoning proposed: Yes Nol c. If so, to what zoning classification? N/A Chainnan Principal Assistant Principals ::ODMA\PCDOCSIDOCSNFK\107366S\1 OFFICERS Robert W. Jones, Jr. Dennis Price Susan Skoczynski BOARD OF TRUSTEES Mr.Robert Albertini Mr. Wyatt Andrews Mr. Michael Blount Mr. Michael Borza Ms. Lisa Broccoletti Mr. Keith Curtis Mr, William Dunn Mr. Thomas Fraim Mr. William Hagan Ms. Lisa Hamlet Mr. Robert W. Jones, Jr. Mrs. Mary Kelly Mr. Stanley Kozub Mr. Lee Murphy Mr. Dennis Price Dr, Lawrence Sabato Mrs.Stephanie Salerno Mr. George Schaefer Mr.Timothy Shaw Ms. Susan Skoczynski Mr. Gerald Sullivan Mr. Martin Thomas Mr. Stephen Whitfield Mr. Gilbert Wirth Exhibit H VIRGINIA BR~CH Virginia Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite] 000 Virginia Beach. VA 23462 (757) 385-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Website: www.vbgov.com June 20, 2006 Mr. Donald V. Jellig Chairman Virginia Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000 Virginia Beach; VA 23462 Subject: Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School Bond Dear Don: The Department of Economic Development concurs with the refinancing of bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Lancaster County, Virginia in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 for Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School. These funds are to be utilized for refinancing the construction and equipping of athletic, library and classroom facilities at the school, located at 4552 Princess Anne Road in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and paying the cost of issuing the bond. It is the finding of the Department of Economic Development that these facilities will promote education in the City of Virginia Beach, benefit its citizens and promote their safety, health, welfare, convenience and properity. Sincerely, ~~~~.\0~ Mark R. Wawner Project Development Coordinator Ills Exhibit I A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BV THE lANCASTER COUNlY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A REVENUE BOND FOR BISHOP SULLIVAN CATHOLIC IDGH SCHOOL WHEREAS, there have been described to the Industrial Development Authority of Lancaster County, Virginia (the Authority), the plans of Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School, a component of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia (the Borrower), whose educational facility (the School) is located at 4552 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, for the issuance of the Authority's bank-qualified tax-exempt revenue bond (the Bond) in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 to assist the Borrower in (a) refinancing the construction and equipping . of athletic, library and classroom facilities at the School (collectively, the Project), located at 4552 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and (b) paying the costs of issuing the Bond; and WHEREAS, the Project is owned by the Borrower and the Authority has held a public hearing on May 31, 2006, with respect to the Project and the issuance of the Bond as required by Virginia law and the. Internal Revenue Code of.1986, as amended (the Code); and WHEREAS,. the Code provi.des that the highest elected. governmental officials of the. - governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds shall approve the issuance of such bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Lancaster County, Virginia (the County), and the members of the Board of Supervisors of Lancaster County (the Board) constitute the highest elected govenunental officials of the County; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the Virginia Code). provides that the Board shall within 60 calendar days from the public hearing with respect to industrial development revenue bonds either approve or disapprove the issuance of such bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bond, a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing with respect to the Bond and a statement in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of the Virginia Code have been filed with the Board, together with the Authoritis recommendation that the Board approve the issuance of the Bond; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, 1. The recitals made in the first and second preambles to this Resolution are hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution. 2. The Board of Supervisors of Lancaster County, Virginia, approves the issuance of the Bond by-ti1e A'91.hority to assist in the plan of finance an4 refinance de~ribed herein . for the benefit of the Borrower to the extent required by the Code and Section 15.2~4906 of the Virginia Code. 3. The approval of the issuance of the Bond, as required by the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code, does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bond of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Borrower, and, as required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Virginia Code, the Bond shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bond or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefore and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 4. The Board of Supervisors of Lancaster County, Virginia, hereby designates the Bond a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code for calendar year 2006. . 5. This R~SQlution shall.take..effect immediately upon its adoption. Adopted: June 29, 2006 Attest: . William H. Pennell, Jr. . County Administrator 2 r ~~'"' ..{~~~~~., ~O'~...~;, ..~1 ~ l".... _'_." ...~) (oi .. kt~ ~~> c~\:~~..~. i;l 0..... ~'P ,\:"'1'; ill ~(:i,.i ~t~ "" "- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ~ ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend the FY 2006-07 Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund Operating Budget in the Amount of $952,556 and Establish Four New Positions MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Background: The State Compensation Board reimburses'the Sheriff's Office for deputy and clerical salaries and a portion of fringe benefits. State law requires the locality to fund the remaining portion of fringe benefits. The State budget included a 4% increase in the "Compensation Board" salary for deputies effective December 1, 2006. The projected amount of additional revenues to be provided by the State for the salary increase amounts to $310,057. The Sheriff proposes accelerating the date of the increase to July 1, 2006 using the Sheriff's Special Revenue Fund balance, as has been the practice in the past several years. In addition, the Compensation Board has approved four deputy positions for court security. The total cost of salary and fringe benefits for the additional positions is $173,190, of which the Compensation Board will fund $117,824. . Considerations: To institute the Compensation Board based salary increases and fund the new deputy positions, total funding in the amount of $952,556 would need to be allocated to the Sheriff's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget. The breakdown of this funding is as follows: State Sheriff Special City General Compensation Revenue Fund Fund Total Board Balance Pay Increases $310,057 $337,270 $132,039 $779,366 Four New Positions $117,824 $55,366 $173,190 Total $427,881 $337,270 $187,405 $952,556 . Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal agenda process. . Recommendations: It is requested that City Council approve an increase in appropriation to the Sheriff's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget in the amount of $952,556. This includes $187,405 available for transfer from the Reserve for Contingencies Fund; $337,270 from the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund balance; and $427,881 in additional State Revenue. . Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Sheriff's Office City Manager: ~ ~ · ~I'I"'<. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FY 2006-07 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATING BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $952,556 AND ESTABLISH FOUR NEW POSITIONS WHEREAS, the Sheriff has requested the use of Fund Balance 8 from the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue Fund to advance 9 retroactively to July 1, 2006, the 4% pay raises for uniform 10 personnel granted by the State Compensation Board to be 11 effective December 1, 2006; 12 WHEREAS, this request qualifies for the use of fund 13 balance because state revenue provides the on-going support 14 beginning in December 2006; 15 WHEREAS, additional state funding of $310,057 and the 16 required local match of $132,039 provide the funding for the 4% 17 salary increase beginning in December 2006; and 18 WHEREAS, four additional deputy positions for court 19 security have been approved from the State Compensation Board at 20 a total cost of $173,190. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 22 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 23 ' 1. That the FY 2006-07 Sheriff's Department Operating 24 budget is hereby amended by $ 952,556 to provide for state pay 25 increases retroactively on July 1, 2006. Funding is provided in 26 the amounts set forth below: 42 27 a. $310,057 is hereby appropriated from the State 28 Compensation Board, with state revenue increased 29 accordingly; 30 b. $337,270 is hereby appropriated from the Fund 31 Balance of the Sheriff's Department Special Revenue 32 Fund, with local revenue increased accordingly; and 33 c. $132,039 is hereby transferred from the General Fund 34 Reserve for Contingencies as needed to fund the 35 fringe benefits for Sheriffs' personnel. 36 2. That $117,824 of State Revenue is hereby appropriated 37 and $55,366 of General Fund Reserve for Contingencies is hereby 38 transferred to the Sheriff Department's FY 2006-07 Operating 39 Budget for the establishment of four full-time positions, with 40 state revenue increased accordingly 41 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of , 2006. Approved as to Content Approved as to Legal Sufficiency fJ~ Q< ~ Management Services ) " ~jrYl -( ~;{/~_ Ci ty Attorney'J Office CA10088 GG/orders/Sheriff Pay lORD July 7, 2006 R-3 ,.,~~~~~ \(:~ \,;.."'~.......; CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate $10,192 from the Hampton Roads Squadron Association of Naval Aviation to the Police Department's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget for the Purchase of Camera Equipment Associated with the Oceanfront Camera Replacement Project MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Background: The Hampton Roads Squadron Association of Naval Aviation ("ANA") has donated $10,192 to the Police Department. The ANA is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization dedicated to expanding advocacy for Naval Aviation and enhancing public safety, The purpose of this donation is to enhance the Police Department's current project to replace the camera system in the resort area. This donation will be used to purchase camera equipment on Atlantic Avenue in Monument Park where the ANA has dedicated to the City monuments paying tribute to Naval aviation. . Considerations: These funds are a donation from the ANA. There is no matching requirement. . Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal Council agenda process. . Recommendations: Accept and appropriate the donation of $10,192 to the Police Department's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget. . Attachments: Ordinance and Award Notification Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department! Agency: Police Department City Manager~~ \1 .~~ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $10,192 2 FROM THE HAMPTON ROADS SQUADRON ASSOCIATION OF 3 NAVAL AVIATION TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FY 4 2006-07 OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE PURCHASE OF 5 EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE OCEANFRONT 6 CAMERA REPLACEMENT PROJECT 7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 8 VIRG INIA: 9 That $10,192 1.S hereby accepted from the Hampton Roads 10 Squadron .Association of Naval Aviation and appropriated to the 11 Police Department's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget for the purchase of 12 equipment associated with the Oceanfront camera replacement 13 project, with donations revenue increased accordingly. 14 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 15 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: ~ CA10087 V:\citylaw\00017271.DOC R-1 July 5, 2006 June 20, 2006 . City of Virginia Beach Dear Sir: RE: Financial Donation. Enclosed you will find a check made out to the City of Virginia Beach in the amount of $10,192.43. The donation is being made to purchase camera equipment on Atlantic Avenue. This is a gift to the city to enhance public safety and is part of our continued 25th Street Monument Project. I, J. PLANNING 1. Applications of MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., re the development of a residential community with forty-nine (49) single-family lots at 2217 Matthews Green: DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE a. Discontinuance. closure and abandonment of portions of Mathews Green east of Princess Anne Road b. Chanf!e of Zoning District Classification from AG-l Agricultural District to Conditional R-20 Residential District with a PD-H2 Overlay RECOMMENDA nON: APPROVAL 2. Variances re lot size to g4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirement of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO): DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN a. C and C DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., at 200 60th Street re construction of three (3) single-family dwellings RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL b. JESSUP CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., at 973 Little Neck Road re two (2) single- family parcels RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 3. Variances for THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road: DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE a. g5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations re one (1) new dwelling, drainfield, well site and gravel drive b. S4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirement of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) due to low elevations RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 4. Application of EVERETTE L. BROWN for a Conditional Use Permit re bulk storage and automotive repair facility at 1305 and 1309 Virginia Beach Boulevard. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH RECOMMENDATION: APPROV AL 5. Application of CUSTOM GRANITE MANUFACTURING CO. for a Conditional Use Permit re a bulk storage yard at 3488 Chandler Creek Road. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 6. Application of ROBERT D. VOOGT for a Conditional Use Permit re a facility for the cognitively impaired at 1851 and 1853 Old Donation Parkway. DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center. 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, July 18, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. The following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Everette L. Brown Application: Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage and automotive repair facility at 1305 and 1309 Virginia Beach Boulevard (GPIN 2417353615). DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL Custom Granite Manufacturing Co. Application: Condi-- tional Use Permit for a bulk storage yard at 3488 Chan- dler Creek Road (GPIN 1485931499). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE United States Fish and Wildlife Service Appl,ication: Variance to Section 58 of the Site Plan Ordinance, Aoodplain Regulations at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road (GPIN 2410189180). -L/ Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdi- vision for United States Fish and Wildlife Service at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road (GPIN 2410189180). Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Application: Discon- tinuance, closure and abandonment of portions of Mathews Green on Princess Anne Road. Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Application: Chang.e of Zonin!!: District Classification from AG-l Agricultural to Conditional R-20 Residential with a PD-H2 Overlay at 2217 Mathews Green (GPIN 2404949948). The Com- prehensive Plan designates this site as being part of Princess Anne (Transition Area). The purpose of this rezoning is to develop the site for single-family homes. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdi- vision for Jessup Construction, L.L.C., at 973 Little Neck Road (GPIN 14888412810000). Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the, Subdivision Ordinance, Subdi- vision for C and C Development Company, Inc., at 200 60th Street (GPINs 2419717532). Robert D. Voogt Application: Conditional Use Permit for a facility for the disabled at 1851 and 1853 Old Dona- tion Parkway (GPINs 24084334511851; , 24084334511853). All interested citizens are invited to attend. ,Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk a=4r d- 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/deot/Dlannim!/boards/oc/. For information call 3854621. 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: TDD only at 3854305. (TDD. Telephonic Device for the Deaf). Beacon July 2 & 9, 2006 15360544 AG-2 o o AG-I Street Closure D'~lRlcr .::21 AG-2 ,// /./' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND DISCONTINUING THOSE PORTIONS OF MATHEWS GREEN DESIGNATED AS "PORTION OF MATHEWS GREEN TO BE VACATED (0.35 ACRES)" AND "PORTION OF MATHEWS GREEN TO BE VACATED (0.08 ACRES)", ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED "STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT OF MATHEWS GREEN, VIRGINIA BEACH 03-23-06". MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Background: Application of Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of portions of Mathews Green, the first portion beginning at a point approximately 130 feet east of its intersection with Princess Anne Road and extending 274.73 feet in an easterly direction and the second portion being the southwest quadrant of a cul-de-sac, located approximately 109.91 feet east of Princess Anne Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE . Considerations: The applicant intends to purchase the entire closed portion of Mathews Green to incorporate into the veterinarian's adjoining property across from its proposed residential development. In exchange for the closed portion of Mathews Green, the veterinarian has agreed to provide a portion of his property to the applicant. The portion of property provided by the veterinarian will give direct access from the proposed development to Princess Anne Road and will provide the veterinarian with a more safe access. The Viewers Committee has determined there is no future need tor the right-ot- way. The area of the street closure will be incorporated into the adjacent non- residential property. The street closure improves the accessibility of both the existing non-residential property and the proposed residential development. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-2 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcel. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Location Map Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. ~ Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: ~~ t .'ts&U'fl4-t. Ilvbgov.comldfs Ilapplicalionslcilylawprodlcycom321 WpdocslDOO5IPOO 1 1000 I 7273.DOC MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIA TES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 16 June 14, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Discontinuance. closure and abandonment of portions of Mathews Green beginning at a point approximately 130 feet east of Mathews Green intersection with Princess Anne Road and extending 274.73 feet in an easterly direction and southwest quadrant of the cul-de-sac, approximately 100 feet east of Princess Anne Road. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property beginning at a point approximately 130 feet east of Mathews Green intersection with Princess Anne Road and extending 274.73 feet in an easterly direction and southwest quadrant of the cul-de-sac, approximately 100 feet east of Princess Anne Road. COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 0.43 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant intends to purchase the two halves of Mathews Green to incorporate into the veterinarian's adjoining property across from their proposed residential development. The veterinarian has agreed to provide a portion of his property to the applicant in exchange for the street closure property. The portion of property provided by the veterinarian gives direct access olthe proposed development to Princess Anne Road and provides the veterinarian a safer access. EXISTING LAND USE: Paved road LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCJATES, L.!-.C. Agenda Iternt6 Page 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: · Veterinarian's office / B-2 Community Business District · Proposed residential development / Currently AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District (Proposed CRZ to R-20 (PD-H2 overlay) · Continuation of Mathews Green to intersection with Princess Anne Road · Single-family dwellings / R-20 Residential District East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The area proposed for closure is paved. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 dB Ldn - 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS (TRAFFIC ENGINEERING): As a condition of the closure of Mathews Way, Traffic Engineering will require that a chanelizing island be added at the Veterinary Clinic entrance at the proposed private road to prohibit vehicles from cutting through the private road from Mathews Way to Princess Anne Road. The configuration of the private road (Mathews Way) intersection is based upon the existing Veterinary Clinic land use that the private roadway serves. If this property were redeveloped into a higher traffic generator, Traffic Engineering reserves the right to modify the access arrangement. The developer will be required to provide a right turn lane on Princess Anne Road at the proposed Mathews Way intersection. Traffic engineering acknowledges that a standard right turn lane cannot be built because of right-ot-way limitations. Right-of-way requirement will be determined at the time of site plan review. On the southbound (inbound) side of the median on the proposed Mathews Way from Princess Anne Road to the median opening for the veterinarian entrance, the pavement width must be 24 feet. This width will allow Mathews Green residential traffic to bypass vehicles waiting to turn into the veterinarian entrance. The proposed left turn lane on Princess Anne Road at Mathews Way to meet Public Works Standards for storage bay and taper length. Additional detailed comments may be made during site plan review. Separate comments have been provided regarding the associated conditional rezoning application for Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C.. MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda I tern 16 PatlE?2 WATER: There is a 16 inch water line located within the proposed street closure which will require dedication of a 30' public utility easement centered over the waterline. In addition, an all weather access will be required within the easement. The developer needs to be advised no encroachments i.e. structures, will be permitted within the easement. SEWER: There are no sewer lines in the area proposed for closure. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Transition Area / Princess Anne. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "Policies of this Comprehensive Plan have been designed to ensure that the Transition Area continues to be a well-planned area. Employment, mixed use, and residential centers, each with its own open space and trail system, will be clustered along and connected to the public greenway offering a variety of quality home and work environments. "(p. 143) Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION The Viewers Committee has determined there is no future need tor the right-ot-way. The area of the street closure will be incorporated into the non-residential adjacent property. The street closure improves the accessibility ot both the existing non-residential property and the proposed residential development. CONDITIONS 1 . The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies ot the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcel. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 16 Page 3 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. 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. MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 16 PqfJ~ 4 AERIAL OF SITE L~AJ:l~b,I;:,.,; ,~, -'" . .. '. -4 "'-' ::" .<" "0 0::: .41> 0..1:: ,-,a o ..q- <.) (/) to in U>l'- '"0 ~ tOl C> C'I C C o..co o-ctO ~ :cQ..'f~& :;U').,q-.....I:: o g~cn.g tf)NN2 r-l .Q! ~ o(l b .....to e IOn. (!)O Q.,Q.. << ;t)C> c.o. ~.a I:: ~.""' (1)< .,..- .2 u>ij5 a:l~ .!:!it.O:E .. ;t o .Ht":l~.N~ 0'''' 1 ... iil'.. .5 It':>.'.G.. ....~ 0. u>'" <:no. ,'. <:0..\ I . ,~<<>.~ g ~;\~~ u.. C'I ~G1 l.L. NoN :aes ~I ~ ....."'x ctu" :;_=> ~O" . "J""'S ....~ Z l.lJ ~ o Ifl ~ ::r:. ~ ~e u..'~ Ou Z<$ O>tx: -.l,loJ u t:; CO..<- ..... on' COl"! o..t-9. IJ,~ --liP 'c$;! <v ~ ~O q. <!L ~ Q'""~ V . ~.~ - Vj... ~<>' ~~ ~~. ~ <y. -q..<f) Cv.:..\,.V .~ ..(\~ .~~ ~.Wtfl>OOI:::al ....~. " ~;. ""-"'(~""':" - , ,'- ,;.' < ':! ...6 ~ Z8 ~.. ! 5: 'dJ8. I~ ~ o!~~ is ~ 0 .~ .~~\\ V'l.....V'l ...,} ~,~ go 3= :r: f!f:6~'; ~ u I.J,J u ~ " ii t:i :r: $ , t~ '52 r-: ~ ~ ~. l- <(< ~~ In '2 ~ ~ :; ~ .... u.l l:i:i <.)...J \.U :1 ~g .~ U lU..o td:I: ~ft '< ~~ 0 CJ 1.:)0 ~ ~ tI) g <( ~ :lSg t5.~ it~ Z W ~aiS u..I ~. (X) ~.~ '#i '-" ~ '"'*' 1:1)1; r.,:) v;- Q) c:n _10 ..... (/) 0 Q> -g tf) IX: s;:.s~ .aN $ ~ \J.l 6: (I) 0. ci U-l ~ ~ ~fE 0) ~ or%. ~ ci "\Q ~oo c:-l . ..",- ..".l) -. C'I 'It to Iii -. 0 ~'t ~ C'loN :::aii ~l.J"l "t"" u..';( ..,.. OU Z<' 0> -w ~co po 0..1- .... ... ~,~<.,~,......> SURVEY OF AREA TO BE ~:, ... "l., ".{~".:':, .' ~ ~ > ~> .<i:~-:-;;.;- - MATHEWS GREEN ASSqeiATEp.,. '~~ndaJt .-ii; ":'<;'" AG-2 AG-2 o 00 AG-I Street Closure 1 11/27/01 Conditional RezoninQ from R-20 to AG-2 Granted 2 11/24/98 Modification of Conditions Granted 03/26/90 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to B-1A Granted 3 1 0/23/89 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-2 Granted Reconsideration of CRZ from R-3 to 0-1 4 04/25/88 Street Closure Granted 5 08/27/86 Downzone to AG-1/ AG-2 Granted ",~<'\,:j~r~J,~:;~':: ,~" ZONING HISTORY,:: . "'., ",.<...,....."..0,,'"' ,,,' ., ~~ ,,~. z o II t= ~ Mathews Green Associates, L1.C U. Charles F. SurrOlighs. III Richard Burroughs Robert S. KeUam I I WUliam C. G&rwitz ., Edward A. Chaplain ....... 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entity2 r:a... .. relationship with the applicant: (Attach fist ifnecessary) ~.tn. DISCLOSURE STATE APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If theapplicantis 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) CbeCl< here iflne applicanfis NOT a corporatian, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. CI':J Q .....::t U PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE QomfJfetethis section only if property owner is different from applicant. roperty owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business,orother 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) I-~~ 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary10raffiliated business Elntiti relatiooship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) tsl ....... I .J;;;J:;:4... .. ... D. Checl< here "the _ ownorls NOT a_on, p_ip, _, businees, = . . or other unincorporated organization. :E---t 1 & Z Seetlext pageforfootnotes CI':J Slreet Closure Applicafum Page 12 0113 t ~ 911f2004 1 MATHEWS GREEN ASSQOJATES, L...l.C. :Agsndalte6 ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES Ust all known contractors or businesses tnathave or will provide services with respecfto the requested property use, includin~ but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Kellam Gerwitz -engine~l'ing and survey services Troutman Sanders LLP-legal services 1.Pa corporation directly 01' the voting power ofa oflnterests Act, Va. C nship" means "a relationship that e shares possessing mo~tl'\1:1l1 oon." See State and LocalG6vem 01. 2 "Affiliated buSinessentltyrelati6nship" means "8 relationship, other than parent;..subsidia.ry relation$~'jthatexi$ts when (i) one business enUt)fhasa controlling ownershipirrtevestln the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner,il"l one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iil) there is shared managemental' control between the business entities. Factors that should be consideredin.d!aterminingthe existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include thaHhe$ame person.or substantially the same person own or manage the two entitles; tnereial"e common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the sa sor employees. or otherwise share activities, resoutces I ular basis; ort/1ere is otherwise a close working relati(jhship s," See State andl,:ocal Government Conflict of tnterests Act,.Va,Code~2.2.,3if01. : lCertify that theinfQt!natlon contai~ hereln is true and , upon receiptofnotlfication(postcard) that the a heduled hearing, tam responsible for obtaining aod posting the required sign on theolfjept property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package... Q: ~y\ L-- Appliccmt's Signature M"",-Gieon _.... u.c !'Ii<:h.O: su,""gI1..I>'_", Print Name Prcper1yOwner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name $~t Closum Applicalic11 "'age 13cf13 ReYiS!!<l91'lJ2004 one of hflict z o I I ~ U ! I ~ ....:r Q..c ~ fia .;:J tI') o ....:r u Mt. Mt .r:.I'} ! 1 ;:,:. .w.:':.' ':-;: ',',' ;;:';,'1!"';,:\,\,;;~.,J> MATHEWS GREEN ASSOt>IATES, L.:l.C. ~~" ",.,~~" Agenda.lt~16 . . . .\0~~~~ March 29, 2006 City of Virginia Planning Building 2, Roo Virginia Beach, Re: ProposedCIOsUreof.aP9rtion of Mathews Green Dear,SirlMadam: theQWl1et of property adjacent to a portion of , q.;Grhas .petitioned to close. The Company to be submitted to the City of Virginia ,understands that the Company wUl to i~iproperty,understands that the and~grees tbatthe Company will F. F. Associates a Virgitiiageneralpartnership r-- , to--wit: rl,ll ... "" wl~ed bef~me tbis.LlLZ9aY~ii~ ".' , wb.()_ispersonally.~wntomeQr '. ~ as identification. in ~"~ty ',as oc.p. F. ASSOCIATES, a Virgi;nJ.ag~eralpartnemnp,.on~;~ the gerleral partnershjp., f.iy Commission Expires: ,....S/..c- Notary Public 311(;36 1: 1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - ADDENlltJNt'.::" ". :. ","> - .~t,. ,r > "- ' 11/; MATHEWS GREEN ASSQ(3jATES, L .C. ~~ndalt '1.6, "'" ..,~ ",,- Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of portions of Mathews Green Change of Zoning District Classification 2217 Mathews Green District 7 Princess Anne June 14, 2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary. Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #16 & 17, Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Application of Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of portions of Mathews Green beginning at a point approximately 130 feet east of its intersection with Princess Anne Road and extending 274.73 feet in an easterly direction and the southwest quadrant ofthe cul-de-sac, approximately 100 feet east of Princess Anne Road, District 7, Princess Anne with four conditions; and Item #17, Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Application of Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District with a PD-H2 Overlay on property located at 2217 Mathews Green, District 7, Princess Anne with twelve proffers. Jeff Maynard: Thank you Mr. Strange. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jeff Maynard. For the record, my business address 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Mathews Green Associates. I have with me Bob Kellam, Bill Gerwitz, Jim Hogan, and Charles Burroughs who are investors and or architects and engineers in this project. Briefly, if Mr. Kellam would step forward, I wanted to show you the aerial photograph of this property. I know that many of you are familiar with it. This is the old property of Virginia Mathews, which my client has purchased. It is an approximately 49Y2-acre tract located along Princess Anne Road. You see that Nimmo Church is here. The Three Oaks community is this way. Princess Anne Road runs along the front and there is a 7-Eleven right here where Princess Anne Road turns to the south. The property is presently zoned agricultural. My clients would like to rezone this property from agricultural to R-20 with a PD-H2 Overlay. And if Bob would switch slides I'll show you briefly their site plan. This property is largely wooded and impacted by wetlands. Weare located in the Transition Area and achieving density by meeting a 50 percent open space requirement. Approximately 17.28 acres is what we are calling a "preservation area" that will be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach, and then we have additional homeowners open space interior to the community that will allow us to achieve the 50 percent threshold. Here are a couple of things about the application. Weare proposing 49 residential lots, 45 of them will be clustered on this side adjacent to or near the Three Oaks community. Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Page 2 There are four additional lots that are not part of the same Homeowners Association but reserve for future development up along Princess Anne Road. The applicant is proposing a dedication of a little less than four acres of land for realignment of Princess Anne Road that we understand will be coming at some point in the future, as well as a dedication of approximately Y2 acre of land to preserve and protect Nimmo Church. The homes to be located on this area, and we will come back to that slide. I wanted to point out for you are brick colonial and design, Georgia Revival Architecture that will be high quality material such as brick or wood or real stucco. There won't be any EIFS or any vinyl in the community. The homes will all be built on crawl spaces and will have either rear or side garages unless the garage is located farther back than the rear of the house that is located on that property. A couple of other items. The price ranges for this development is going to be in the $600,000-$800,000 range. So they are high quality materials and a very high quality development. If you would turn back to the slide, I wanted to let you know that we have met on four occasions with the Three Oaks community. I understand that a couple of their representatives are here, and I wanted to point out the issues that we have been able to negotiate with them and then focus on the last issue that we have come to an agreement on but I wanted to point out. Initially when our engineers and the applicant filed this application, the entrance was proposed along Princess Anne Road. They have spent considerable time during this process working with the city planning staff and traffic engineering department to come up with an acceptable alignment at the entrance along Princess Anne Road. That also is the reason for the street closure application that is a component of this overall development. The street closure has been negotiated with Dr. Francois who owns FM Associates and has a veterinarian practice there. He will be getting this section of the street closure and it will increase the size of his lot and will allow him to configure the entrance to his property through our development instead of the oddly shaped entrance that is presently located along Princess Anne Road. A couple of the issues we had and discussed with the community on. Several of the residents along the storm water pond were concerned about the size ofthese lots initially. We were able to expand it greatly. I will point out the average lot size in this community is approximately 16,000 square feet. The smallest is in the 11,000 square foot range. We have some that are over 20,000 square feet, and the larger ones are along this area. Another issue that was raised in the early session dealt with the buffering. And as pointed out, the owners of the property of Three Oaks, their property lines go to our side, I guess of the canal here, so they actually own this property here. There is going to be an existing strip of trees that will remain we will not be able to touch them as they are part of the other property owner's property. I will point out our open space, the Homeowners Association open space has connectivity with an internal trail system. There are sidewalks on both sides of the property. Probably the issues that we spent the most time on with the community deals with the connection of Kindling Hollow Road, which is here on the site plan. The residents of the neighborhood have objected strongly to that. They pretty much from day one and first meeting we had with them said they did not want our neighborhood to connect with theirs. As we have gone through the planning process, we understand that the City's subdivision ordinance requires us to show connectivity but I wanted to represent to you that if it's the will of the Commission and Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 3 the City Council, our applicant does not wish to show a vehicular connection. This morning there was some discussion whether we would be willing to install pedestrian connectivity such as bike trails or walking paths between the communities. We are, of course, willing to build a road. However, the residents of Three Oaks, I believe are opposed to that notion. So we would, again, seek your direction on that. I would point out that if connectivity is eliminated the change in the site plan would be that Mathews Way would be basically a loop road with a single entrance off of Princess Anne Road. We would eliminate this and it would become and these lots may change just a little bit but there would be no connection between the neighborhoods. There would be no cul-de- sac here as well. It would be just a loop road system. So, with that, I will standby for any questions and ask for your recommendation for approval. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Maynard? Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: The same one I asked this morning. Is it not only going to be pedestrian friendly but bike friendly as well? Is the developer going to put in not only sidewalks for pedestrians but trails for bicycles? Not only in the open space that Parks and Recreation are going to do it but within the development itself along the streets? It is very important that they have bicycle access as well. Jeff Maynard: Our development will have trail systems here and sidewalks all the way around that will accommodate bicycle access. Eugene Crabtree: It will be large enough and wide enough for bicycles and use them as bike paths as well? Jeff Maynard: Yes. I would point out that we are going to dedicate this portion to the City. Eugene Crabtree: I understand that. But this is above and beyond what the City is going to do. Jeff Maynard: Right. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Maynard. Jeff Maynard: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Speaking in support of the application we have Robert Kellam. Robert Kellam: Actually, I was just asked to fill out a card. I have nothing to add. Joseph Strange: Good. Speaking in opposition, the first opposition is Dennis Meligonis. Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 4 Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Dennis Meligonis: Good afternoon. Barry Knight: Please state your name for the record. Dennis Meligonis: I'm Dennis Meligonis. I'm the President of the Three Oaks Homes Association. This time I am representing the residents of the neighborhood and we do have several. I would like for them to stand please. Confirming with the developer, our opposition to this neighborhood is the connection to Kindling Hollow Road. Basically we have two reasons why we don't want that road connected. Three Oaks neighborhood is a little' over 20 years old. We have a very, very low crime rate. We feel this is because of the one entrance and exit into the neighborhood, we haven't had any major crimes because we don't have an escape route but if you did connect the Kindling Hollow Road that would allow an escape route out of the back of our neighborhood. The second issue is we are in a school walking zone. We did have the new elementary school built behind our neighborhood. We don't have sidewalks in our neighborhood. So all of the children in the neighborhood have to walk on the streets to school. With the Kindling Hollow connector being in back of the neighborhood that would certainly cause a change in traffic patterns and certainly cause increase traffic to the back of the neighborhood where a majority of the students would be walking to school. Approximately in the last 24 months there have been several neighborhoods within a three-mile radius of Three Oaks. Some of them are Princess Anne Quarter, Victoria Park in Virginia Beach, High Court, Chelsea Place, and Seaboard Forest. All of these are single entrance and exit neighborhoods and we feel we should have the same consideration as those neighborhoods with one entrance and one exit. Like I said, in summary our neighborhood is over 20 years. We really, really like our one entrance and exit. We hope that you make this recommendation to City Council. Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: You say you're objecting to the vehicular access but would you object to a pedestrian access from that neighborhood to your neighborhood with that connectivity? Dennis Meligonis: Probably not. Of course, I am representing the community and we really didn't discuss that with our community. We had several meetings with the builder. Basically representing the neighborhood here was just for the road connection. Barry Knight: Any other comments? Mr. Henley. Al Henley: Mr. Meligonis. On the question that Mr. Bernas just asked if for some reason that the road is not connected, once again, I think it is very important to open up neighborhoods with trail systems primarily pedestrian as well as bicycle traffic as well. Take into consideration with the proposal that Three Oaks has a great opportunity to Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 5 enjoy the open space that is going to be dedicated by the applicant. So the enjoyment there and not just for that neighborhood would be also be enjoyed by the surrounding neighborhoods just like Three Oaks. Does that sound attractive to you? Dennis Meligonis: Yes. Al Henley: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions or comments? Sir, I would like to note that it looks like there are some options on the table. Opening it up for vehicular traffic, which you all don't want, completely closing it for some sort of compromise. I've heard, so far and in some informal discussions that it looks like it would be -appropriate to open it up for pedestrian traffic and trail traffic. And also, with what else is being discussed is possibly getting a city deeded right-of-way, a deed access in there because you don't know what is going to happen in 15 or 20 years but don't put a road in there now. There has also been some discussion and the Fire Department has some break away barriers or some gates that they can go through with keys or electronics that wouldn't be used by anyone except for an extreme emergency of a fire or something. So, I would just like to throw that out for some other residents that are going to speak to be aware that we have some options. It's maybe all or nothing or maybe some sort of compromise. Thank you SIr, Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Renee Swinson. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Please state your name for the record. Renee Swinson: Renee Swinson. I'm a seven year resident of Three Oaks and I live in the house adjacent to the proposed development on the end of Kindling Hollow Road. I do support Dennis' stand on opposing a road going through since I live right there but I would like to go further and say that I actually oppose the entire development. I am here to voice my opposition, As Dennis mentioned, currently there are numerous residential developments being proposed and built, and with this increase in density, I begin to question the need for this development. Over the past few years, the following have been considered for development within the Princess Anne section. Chelsea Place, Sherwood Lakes, Mayberry, Highcourt, Heritage Park, Victoria Park, Asheville Park, Nimmo's Quay and Seaboard Acres. On Sunday, June 11,2006, the Virginian Pilot published an article on the Pungo Village Public Hearings and reported that in the last three years over 800 homes have been approved for development in the Transition Area. One Tuesday, June 13, 2006, the Pilot ran another article on three proposed developments, two of which are in the Princess Anne Corridor. The article focused on the opposition of these developments particularly that the residents worry that the growth is outstripping the city's ability to repair for the roads and other services. As a 35 year resident of Virginia Beach, I concur with this opposition based on my concern with the city's inability to provide the necessary services proportional to the proposed density increases. Just last Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 6 night, Sherwood Lakes development was approved by City Council. With all these developments and the hundred of houses they constitute, what is the need for another development? Kellam High School is already overcrowded. The new Three Oaks Elementary School is over booked for next year. With the increase in density these developments represent, these schools will have a difficult time accommodating the children. I have a daughter who will attend Three Oaks Elementary next year and I am disheartened to think that she may have to attend class in a portable in a two-year old school. A lot of citizens moved to the Transition Area to get away from the overcrowding of northern Virginia Beach. In talks with some other Three Oaks residents that have asked me when is growth and progress a detriment? The Transition Area serves as a land use buffer between the urban northern portion of the city and- the rural southern portion of the city. Land use in density within this area should not be- a continuation of either form but a transition from one to the other. I want to thank you for your time and consideration and I am opposed to this request. Barry Knight: Thank you ma'am. Are there any questions? Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next speaker B.J. Giancola. BJ. Giancola: My name is BJ. Giancola. Ed Weeden: Sir, identify yourself in the mic. BJ. Giancola: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is BJ. Giancola. My wife and I have lived at Three Oaks at Kindling Hollow Road for the past 19 years. In the past six months we conducted a survey of Three Oaks homeowners and I would like to submit the original petition with 13 copies containing the signatures of 189 homeowners who oppose having a connection entry/exit from Mathews Green to Three Oaks community. This represents a majority of the homeowners. The proposed connection will only cause significant increase in traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion to the entrance of Three Oaks and increase safety issues for children who ride bikes, motor scooters and walk our streets with no sidewalks. During several meetings of the Three Oaks Homeowners Association, Mathews Green developers stated they would agree to with the majority of the Three Oaks homeowners to move the proposed connection from the plans if they had permission from the City Planning Commission and Council. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Karen Prochilo for her outstanding feedback with the Three Oaks homeowners and Mr. Kenyon and Mr. Swinson for providing assistance in conducting the survey and Ms. Dalton for making copies of the petition. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Before you make any decision I would just like to comment that as far as the emergency vehicles, I really don't see where it would gain any benefit by having any kind of access there. If they are going to have any problems it is going to be in either Three Oaks or it is going to be in Highgate Greens. I can't see where it is reasonable that if it is Mathews Green that they would be cutting through or going through Three Oaks in order to get to an a emergency in Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Page 7 Mathews Green. We have been here for 19 years and I've never heard of any kind of block up in front entrance of Three Oaks where an emergency vehicle couldn't get through. I don't think that is a problem. In the past few days I heard all this talk about the pedestrian right of way. The people that I have talked they don't want any connection there. We already have a problem whether people that already live there know, there are a lot of children and they're not only riding bikes but they are motorized scooters. That would just add between the developments of increased traffic. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions? B.J. Giancola: Should I submit these? Barry Knight: Give them to Mr. Livas. That will be fine. Joseph Strange: That concludes the opposition of speakers. Barry Knight: Mr. Maynard. Jeff Maynard: I don't have anything else to add other than what we said in our primary presentation. I guess with regard to the opposition general to the development. While our applicant can't solve all the city's traffic or other problems, we are dedicating a substantial area for future right-of-way improvements, which is a considerable value as well as taking property that is zoned agricultural and adding it to the tax base or to a higher rate. I'll standby for any questions. Again, we understand the community and Mr. Giancola petition. He had informed us earlier that the community doesn't want any connectivity whether that be a pedestrian or vehicular. So, our applicant, again is willing to do that which that the Planning Commission recommends. I would ask for your direction on that. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Maynard, about the right-turn in lane? Please address that. Jeff Maynard: Sure. There is not enough property for the benefit of everyone. The right turn in lane that Mr. Knight is referring to is on Princess Anne Road here. There is not enough land on the Mathews Green property to install a standard a right turn deceleration lane. However, our applicant is committed and our client is committed that during the site plan review process to install a right turn lane that allows for some vehicle stacking into the development. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Maynard. We all know that it is very, very congested in that neck of the woods. Anything that we can help do to facilitate traffic flow in that area is going to be somewhat of a help. Are there any questions for Mr. Maynard? Mr. Bernas? Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 8 Jay Bernas: Is the applicant willing to work with staff prior to going to City Council on providing pedestrian access? As I understand it, and staff correct me if I am wrong that Three Oaks will have a pedestrian access to Sherwood Lakes that was recently approved. Correct me if I'm wrong if that is true or not? Karen Prochilo: Highgate Greens has a pedestrian access to LBH (Sherwood Lakes). Three Oaks does not have any connection currently with any developments. This is a proposed connection but it is a street tie connection. That is how it is being proposed. Jay Bernas: So is the applicant willing to work with staff, I guess on providing some sort of pedestrian access? Just like Mr. Henley had mentioned that Three Oaks would also have the-benefit of this tremendous open space that this development- will be providing? Jeff Maynard: The applicant is certainly willing to do it. In fact, the applicant is willing to install a road. However, as we represented to the community we would support their direction on this initiative. We understand that 189 members, a majority as Mr. Giancola has pointed out opposes the application for that reason, then we of course wouldn't want that. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: Mr. Maynard, the road that you designed to connect to Three Oaks, the street stub that is shown on the plat, that was an existing street stub that you designed too, I assume that you didn't have to acquire? Jeff Maynard: That is correct. Ronald Ripley: That was envisioned as a conductor when Three Oaks was platted? I assume? Jeff Maynard: Right. We reviewed the plat for Three Oaks at the time and there was no cul-de-sac provided at that time. We looked in fact to see if there were additional notes or anything that pointed to future connection but all that was shown on the original plat was a street stub and not a cul-de-sac. So we assumed that was provided for future connection. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Livas. Henry Livas: Did your original plan call for that connectivity or did you do it as a result of the city forcing you too? Jeff Maynard: Our original plan showed the connectivity and I don't know if it was the Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 9 city forcing us to do it because it was part of the requirement of the subdivision ordinance. I think Mr. Kellam and his engineering firm originally designed the application to comply with the subdivision ordinance. Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: Yes. If you do not put a vehicular connection there and it is just a bike and pedestrian, that would sort of connect your community as well as the Greenway to the Three Oaks neighborhood, and it would give the Three Oaks neighborhood a much larger area for their recreational purposes or whatever. Do you have any ide~ of what the City's Parks and Recreation plans to do with the open space or really what they plan to put in there other than just trails? Jeff Maynard: We haven't gotten an indication from the City on that. The only thing that we did discuss was at the time we agreed to dedicate that space to the city. We wanted it to remain as an urban forest. So we included a restriction that we didn't want ball fields or that type of recreation. Eugene Crabtree: No. But did you put any restriction on there as far as other leisure activities other than just biking and walking? Jeff Maynard: Right. What I included in the restriction, I think was the term "passive recreational use", which would be walking and hiking trails. Eugene Crabtree: Alright. But that is going to be Parks and Recreation? Jeff Maynard: Yes. As I understand it as I confirmed with Karen. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Maynard? Thank you Mr. Maynard. Jeff Maynard: Thank you. Barry Knight: I'll open it up for discussion. Mr. Henley. AI Henley: I would like to compliment the applicant as well as the staff and the ability to work and discuss the many issues that have arisen as a result of this application. I believe the application is an application that has been well thought out, well planned. It would certainly compliment the neighborhood of Three Oaks and the surrounding area. I may want to mention that very seldom we have an opportunity that a number of applicants will actually benefit the city, the neighborhood. The applicants have dedicated additional property that is directly across from the historical structure mainly called Nimmo Church. And I had a letter in possession that was signed by the church applauding that, which I thought was really gracious of the proposed development. Along with that the dedication, the deed, the proposed Princess Anne Road relocation is also very beneficial to the traffic Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 10 situation that everyone is aware of. This will certainly benefit alleviating a lot of the traffic concerns in that particular cross intersection. The open space will also benefit the city, that particular neighborhood of Mathews Green, as well as Three Oaks, and the other surrounding neighborhoods to enjoy the open space and large canopy trees that are present in that particular area along with the trails that are proposed for that area. Understand that the street connection is a standard that the City of Virginia Beach has adopted years ago, and obviously was adopted for a purpose because at one particular time there were locked in neighborhoods and nobody could gain access. There was one way in and one way out. Unfortunately, life and loss of life and threatening of structures because of fire and staff had to get along with fire and rescue and they established this ordinance. We had a real neat year to be exercised and that is to open- up neighborhoods to avoid unfortunate critical situations to avoid death, emergency situations, heart attacks, fire and rescue. As the gentlemen pointed out they never had that situation arise in Three Oaks. I think that is very fortunate and we all hope that we would never have that particular situation to occur. But it only takes one situation. One particular critical incident and people begin to think if that only other access would have been open and we would have had a clearer shot because minutes count when life is in limbo. Again, minutes count when a fire engine cannot get there appropriately in time. That is something that is real life situation. I can clearly understand the resident at the end of that particular street. I have had my solitude. I can clearly understand and appreciate where those individuals are coming from. However, when you look at the future of the city, and the future of well planned neighborhoods, I think it is the only way to go. Bottom line, City Council will be the one that will be listening to this to make a decision whether that street connection will, in fact be open to traffic or it will be closed or if it is an option possibly pedestrian and bikeway systems. I, for one, believe that bikeway and not encouraged to vehicular traffic. I am not in support of that even though it is against city staff, and I hate to go against city staff but I realize that on the books they had to recommend that for the public well being. But I can clearly sympathize with that neighborhood. If I lived there I would probably not want that myself but I would be delighted to have a cross connection or pedestrian as well as bikeways. The elevation that is proposed in this is an excellent opportunity for an upgraded upscale neighborhood that everyone can certainly be proud of. It is a close knit neighborhood with trails that they could enjoy, bikeways and the tremendous open space behind canopy trees that is present in that particular area. I can go on but I'm not going to delay any longer. I will say I will be supporting this for those reasons that I mentioned today. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Are there any other comments? Eugene Crabtree: Just one quick one. I want to ditto AI's comments and say that as far as the pedestrian and bike connectivity, the Bike and Trails Committee that has been formed in the last year here in the city has worked very diligently and has made recommendations, and we've changed the Comprehensive Plan to try to connect the entire city with pedestrian and bike access so that we could go from one point in the city to the next. All over. No matter where it is, all the old neighborhoods, all the new Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 11 neighborhoods and all. So, I too support the connectivity of the bike and trails. If for no other reason than for the continuity of us having our communities connected so that we can go and flow from one to the other throughout the city, which we hope some day to run from over the Amphibious Base Little Creek all the way down to the city line going towards Knotts Island. We hope someday to have connectivity. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Are there any other comments? Discussion? The Chair will entertain a motion. Al Henley: I'll make a motion to approve. Ronald Ripley: Second. Barry Knight: A motion to approve by AI Henley and a second by Ron Ripley. Mr. Henley, tell us again that you are approving it as stated or any changes between here and Council? Al Henley: I'm approving it as stated with the exception of not tying in the Three Oaks . street for vehicular traffic. However, I wanted it to be a dedicated right-of-way joining both neighborhoods with a pedestrian access and with also a bikeway. Those bikeways and pedestrian will be paved for concrete. Barry Knight: Thank you. Is that your second Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: That is not my second. I withdraw my second. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Janice Anderson: I'll second it. Barry Knight: Ms. Anderson. Is there any discussion? There is a motion on the floor with the adjustment made. We have a first by AI Henley and a second by Jan Anderson. I'll call for the question. Karen Prochilo: May we ask that the motion be with a surface approved by Parks and Recreation, if that is possible? Al Henley: Yes. I concur. Barry Knight: Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: That is fine. Barry Knight: Thank you. Call for the question. Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 12 ANDERSON BERNAS CRABTREE HENLEY KA TSIAS KNIGHT LIVAS RIPLEY STRANGE WALLER WOOD AYE 9 NAY 2 ABSO ABSENT 0 AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE NAY NAY AYE AYE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-2, the Board has approved the application of Mathews Green Associates as stated and as approved by Parks and Recreation. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Weeden. 1 IN THE MATTER OF CLOS ING, VACATING AND 2 DISCONTINUING THOSE PORTIONS OF MATHEWS 3 GREEN DESIGNATED AS uPORTION OF MATHEWS 4 GREEN TO BE VACATED ( 0 . 35 ACRES)" AND 5 uPORTION OF MATHEWS GREEN TO BE VACATED 6 (0.08 ACRES)" AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN 7 PLAT ENTITLED uSTREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT 8 OF MATHEWS GREEN VIRGINIA BEACH 03-23- 9 06" 10 11 12 WHEREAS, Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C., a Virginia 13 limited liability company, applied to the Council of the City of 14 Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have portions of the hereinafter 15 described street discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 16 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that the 17 portions of the said street be discontinued, closed, and 18 vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or 19 before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this 20 Ordinance; 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the 22 City of Virginia Beach, Virginia: 23 SECTION I 24 That the hereinafter described portions of the street 25 be discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certain 26 conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City 27 Council's adoption of this ordinance: GPIN: 2404-94-9948, 2404-95-3651, 2404-95-6764 1 28 All those certain pieces or parcels of land 29 situate, lying and being in the City of 30 Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and 31 described as "PORTION OF MATHEWS GREEN TO BE 32 VACATED (0.35 ACRES)" and "PORTION OF 3 3 MATHEWS GREEN TO BE VACATED ( 0 . 0 8 ACRES)" 34 shown as the hatched area on that certain 35 plat entitled: "STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT OF 36 MATHEWS GREEN VIRGINIA BEACH 03-23-06" 37 Scale: I" = 60', dated March 23, 2006, 38 prepared by Kellam Gerwitz, a copy of which 39 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 40 41 42 SECTION II 43 The following conditions must be met on or before one 44 (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: 45 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final 46 determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The 47 purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined 48 according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest 49 in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City 50 Council. Copies of said policy are available in the Planning 51 Department. 52 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and 53 vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into 54 the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat shall be 55 submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street 56 closure approval. 2 57 3. The applicant shall verify that no private 58 utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. 59 Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that 60 there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed 61 for closure. If private utilities do exist, the applicant shall 62 provide easements satisfactory to the utility companies. 63 4. Closure of the right-of -way shall be contingent 64 upon compliance with the above stated conditions within one (1) 65 year of approval by City Council. If all conditions noted above 66 are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within 67 one (1) year of the City Council vote to close the street, this 68 approval will be considered null and void. 69 SECTION III 70 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on 71 or before July 17, 2007, this Ordinance will be deemed null and 72 void without further action by the City Council. 73 2. If all conditions are met on or before July 17, 74 2007, the date of final closure is the date the street closure 75 ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 76 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any 77 interest in the underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee 78 is authorized to execute whatever documents, if any, that may be 3 79 requested to convey such interest, provided said documents are 80 approved by the City Attorney's Office. 81 SECTION IV 82 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in 83 the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia 84 Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF VIRGINIA 85 BEACH as "Grantor" and MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, L. L. C., as 86 "Grantee. " 87 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 88 Virginia, on this day of , 2006. THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED TO COUNCIL. CA-9878 IIvbgov.com\dfs 1 lappJications\citylawprod\cycom32\ Wpdocs\DOOSIPOO 1\000 I 7274.DOC R-l July 7, 2006 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~ 1-1-0' Plann g Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: f/JotA- ~ UJukw City Att ney 4 ",.~ '.... ...-' .... -4-0 00 oo~ rn- <0 )>z (')0 ~-n moS. z~ tvN ~ ........(1) ..j:o.N):> .--- "':J ~ N 0 0, -I 0-' tO~<D o X z., :r: Cf) m 9-0 to ~ fT1 f; ~ ~p> t:r ~ -;t:J Cfl g;:: to g (f) rn,....., oClJ to(/) ,....., _....J --.J 4=>-(/).....1 ~ ~~ co )> ?J m g. :J rT'\ Z :::j -0 :J rT'\ CJ'I G"l CIl Z Ov ..,., o~ 0: )> VI (j) o (j) o Q )> -I rIi (f) ~ ~ '0-\-0 \...JOO ~OJ~ nrn- ~<O ~)>z nO ~-n M"s. 0)>: ;....; :r.: ~ <.n () iO rn Z .... oCl ~$ ~-o OJ: (i ())(f) o(i > .. rn r r () z n :c \I ;::; 0"<:\ c -r\ rT1 ~ ... r-J o < ;;is CJ z~ If; g", , >> ~ s~ ~~ rn ~~.~)>:r. ~ g~ l 2 rn (') l~ ' ~ ~ 05 ~~ ~ ~ r Vi -nlf; -=< ~ ~ ';l;>: c ::;~ 2;:;l ~ CJ ?O !~ ~ ..., rn ~~~ N ~ ~ ~~ rn J: ~2! 8m;::;:; ~" \ Z """ . N =i t.J.) 6 0" ... .~ }.z. REF:NAD 83/93 (HARM) ~~!::i~G~C~G~ l"'1 ,,~i>'>;..i'-r"J" y.. \!)'O~ . ~~ (/)U)%%(/)(/)(/)IJI%~ cDVl<o~iO~~<OcO> u'~"":c.i~r->uiN"';~ CD <D 0 co 0 -':, tJI. (Q l'l G') ....(JltJI(,il)ltJI-tJI01 (JlCDNCIlNN(JI~Vl . . l"'1l"'1:E:El'tll"'1l"'1l"'1:E ,<) ~~ ~~ ~ /6d> fr .. -<> --t ~ 1-;~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~-<> 'BO ~ ~ <:> ~ 0>, rft- "1+ v 9 .... .... _N ~ ....~tJI~OI(Q~O)~> ~ <:> 0 :... g' :..I~rn 13- iO co- ~z~ 0;:: N tv -n OJ mm,-!=- N "'Tl '" ~~ 0 0 to en""" -!=- <D C"l 93. \ '-0 )> ~ -0 <D.., CIJ -0 <;) (J1 -.,w -0<;) ,='0 ~ ",9> , _. o(\) 0 ...,J. '-"" -' .... !::~ g; ~ ~ OJ -' co ..... )>(J) ....~ :J ~.:-J :J - (tl ,,"'0 GH" :::0 N 0.. _gCll...~::a ~bjji~pi~ ~o0l8~~ ~~NN(j) ::sCD~tvO _' 0 0 c ::s ..... ~ (J1 r+ '-?~I-o~ ~ to.., 0 'OJ (J'I -. tv -0 I ~ :::l G) 0') <D 0- -..J(J) (]1 0') (J) 0 .....~)>o :J ..., :J"'O (b . ::0 0. ~~~NO~ . . . ~C1l(") OINON' ",,_..-...1 ~ ~ ~3: CJOO ......... mOl S1>~ -u-o G)G) <..H(Jl 0')-' ....... .... Q \(0 < ~ .:....- ii.ig~S~ ~. .~ti~.. N 0 0> "~("l~Q~ ~ .' ,.... ,. <t~. ".'. .......'" " .._, .... ,., ~,.,.~." ,I. . '.' ... '.",'. ',' ..,... t".~ -,'..,..., ..'- ".;. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. - Change of Zoning District Classification, 2217 Matthews Green (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Background: Application of Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. for a Cham'.le of Zonina District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural District to Conditional R-20 Residential District with a PD-H2 Overlay on property located at 2217 Mathews Green (GPIN 2404949948). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE . Considerations: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing agricultural property in order to develop a residential community consisting of 49 single-family lots. The applicant has worked with staff to provide a proposal that conforms to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The allowable density for the area is one dwelling unit per developable acre provided the development meets certain criteria defined within the Comprehensive Plan. The site consists of 49.32 acres. There are non-tidal wetlands located in the wooded area shown on the proffered plan; however, these wetlands are not the type identified in the City Zoning Ordinance as being ineligible for density. Thus, the entire 49.32 acre site is used for the purpose of determining residential density. The Transition Area "Matrix" was used to evaluate the proposal's consistency with land use and design goals for the Transition Area. The result was a score of 0.99 dwelling units per acre. This score translates to a total of 49 units. Staffs evaluation reveals that this proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan as contained in the Transition Area Design Guidelines. In conjunction with this proposal, the applicant is proffering the dedication of land to the City of Virginia Beach for the proposed realignment of Princess Anne Road. The applicant also proposes to dedicate land to Nimmo Church as additional buffer when Princess Anne Road is realigned. The applicant worked with the two homeowners across Princess Anne Road next to Nimmo Church to locate four of the residential lots to form a small neighborhood at the time of the Princess Anne Road realignment. The applicant also coordinated with the adjacent property owner across Mathews Green (veterinary clinic) to provide a better access on Princess Anne Road for both properties. Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Page 2 of 3 In response to concerns from the adjoining neighborhood and from the Planning Commission, the applicant revised the plan after the Planning Commission hearing. The revision eliminates the potential for a direct roadway connection between this proposed development and the adjacent Three Oaks neighborhood. The revision does, however, include a pedestrian trail connection between the two neighborhoods in lieu of the roadway connection, which was acceptable to the adjoining neighborhood. The revised plan is attached. It should be noted that the elimination of the direct roadway connection is contrary to the Subdivision Ordinance's design standards for streets (Section 4.1.b). Such connections are encouraged as a means of improving access to residential communities by emergency response vehicles, school buses, public service .vehicles, and residents. City and School agencies, in their review of subdivision plans, consistently emphasize the need for such connections. - There was opposition to the request. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-2 to approve the request, as proffered. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting DepartmentJAgency: Planning Department CityManager~ Ie. ~ ~ MatheWS Green Associates. L.L.C. Page 3 of 3 SITE pLAN AS REVISED SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION i~*~~\.t~:>: ~~51 % E?~~~s~~~~~~7 ,~~~ ~~~;~;~~ *-~s "'"'- ~ .-- ~~$ s.......... t \ 1 -\, \ \ \ J \ \. I \ j .11 \ 1 .\ ~ 1;. ~ f ~ ~ 'a ~: t ~ ~ ~ ~~ '" 'l', ~ ~. i~ 1? 1i . ~t s~ ~ ~w'~ ~ ; ~~ ~~ ~~ ? ~$U~ ' ~ ~~ ~t~~~} ~S~;?*- ~$~ ~~ ~$~~~?~ie~~~~~ ~;~ ~~ .~S~0!~~~~~g~~~ ? :~~ ,~ %~~~S~F~~~,,,~~~$6~ $;$~~ ~t ~t~~~<~~~~,~i~~~~~ ~~,~5 ~ // r-- ~ ./~/ l --- I. '.. j il" -7./1 " /1 I _I I ""t' . : 1 1 I I' . ,I L--~""" V '," ' 1 S ~ I ~ rJ') i ~ ~Z2 \-r-uJ 'i ~ ..J- u.J ~i--.~ ri<lJ 2.~ ~ .. , '" p ~ t~ .. I ~- C 1:: , .. i I r; MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 17 June 14, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Chanae of Zonina District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to R-20 Residential District with a PD-H2 Overlay. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 2217 Mathews Green. GPIN: 24049499480000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 49.32 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to rezone the existing agricultural property in order to develop a residential community consisting of 49 single-family lots. In conjunction with this proposal, the applicant is proffering the dedication of land to the City of Virginia Beach for the proposed realignment of Princess Anne Road. In addition, the applicant proposes to donate additional property to Nimmo Church with the realignment of Princess Anne Road. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped rural residential site SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: · Across Mathews Green is a veterinarian's office and 7-11 / B- 1A Limited Community Business District and B-2 Community Business District · Across Princess Anne Road is Nimmo Church and rural residential /0-2 Office District, R-20 Residential District and AG-2 Agricultural District MATHEWS GREEN ASS~t.A.TES, . :~~ndal South: · Single-family residential and undeveloped agricultural land I R- 20 Residential District and AG-1 & AG--2 Agricultural Districts · Undeveloped agricultural land I AG-1 & AG--2 Agricultural Districts · Single-family residential I R-20 Residential District East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The majority of the site is treed. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 dB Ldn to 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The Navy's Air installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program designated residential development in this contour as incompatible. However, the 2005 Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study produced no constraints on development in the 65 to 70 dB DNL sound contour. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN CMTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): The proposed Mathews Green subdivision as shown on the rezoning exhibit's site layout has a connection to Princess Anne Road opposite Huckleberry Trail as the main neighborhood access point. This intersection will allow both left and right turns to and from Princess Anne Road. The secondary access point shown on Princess Anne Road at the existing intersection with Mathews Green, south ot the Princess Anne / General Booth Boulevard Road intersection is proposed to be closed to public traffic. The segment of Princess Anne Road south of General Booth Boulevard will be improved to a four-lane divided roadway as part of the Princess Anne Road Phase VII project which is currently scheduled for construction in 2015. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Princess Anne 22,688 ADT Four lane section: Existing Land Use>::- Road (four- (2005) 28,200 ADT 1 (Level of 10 ADT lane/two lane Service "C") , Proposed Land Use 3_ minor suburban 30,600 ADT 1 (Level of 469 ADT arterial -west at Service "0") General Booth Two lane section: Boulevard) 15,000 ADT 1 (Level of Service "0") '16,200 ADT 1 (Level of Service "E") ,,:~~("i'~'i;:'4'~~" 'i, , <:<~^~;":~::'~:~;;~J~.:" . MATHEWS GREEN ASSaC]ATES,Lt': .C. ~genda I' ,17 " , " '2 Princess Anne 14,079 ADT 13,600 ADT (Level of Road (two lane (2005) Service "C") minor suburban 15,000 ADT 1 (Level of arterial -south of Service "D") General Booth Boulevard) Average Dally Tnps 2 as defined by agricultural zoning 3 as defined by weekdays based on 49 single family homes The developer will be required to provide a right turn lane on Princess Anne Road at the proposed Mathews Way intersection. Traffic engineering acknowledges that a standard right turn lane cannot be built because of right-of-way limitations. Right-of-way requirement will be determined at the time of site plan review. Associated with the connection to the Three Oaks neighborhood, the developer will be required to design and install traffic calming devices such as median islands within the Mathews Green subdivision to discourage cut- through traffic. On the southbound (inbound) side of the median on the proposed MathewsWay from Princess Anne Road to the median opening for the veterinarian entrance, the pavement width must be 24 feet. This width will allow Mathews Green residential traffic to bypass vehicles waiting to turn into the veterinarian entrance. The proposed left turn lane on Princess Anne Road at Mathews Way must meet Public Works Standards for storage bay and taper length. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: A stormwater management plan for water quantity and quality in accordance with the Public Works Specifications and Standards must be developed for the proposed subdivision and the four lots backing on the proposed Princess Anne Road Realignment. Typically the size of stormwater management facilities range from 10 % to 15% of development. The proposed stormwater management facility appears to be less than the range and may require reconfiguration. The proposed development must ensure that the drainage of upstream property / drainage areas through the property by sheet flow / conveyance system is maintained. Easements will have to be dedicated if the existing sheet flow / conveyance system are blocked or redirected by development. Any stormwater management plan must include lots 46 through 49. WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is an existing 16-inch water main in Mathews Green. SEWER: There is no City sanitary sewer fronting this site along Mathews Green. City gravity sanitary sewer is not available. Private grinder pumps and force main may be an option. If flows enter an existing pump station area, analysis of the pump station and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. PARKS AND RECREATION: It is recommended that the proposed Open Space / Preservation Area be dedicated to the City since this ensures that the Transition Area Buffer along the Princess Anne Road Realignment and the trail system will be coordinated. The walking path within the homeowner association open space must be a minimum of six feet wide and MATHEWS GREEN ASSO:GJATES~ ere.:: ;:A9~nda lt17 "rl:'/ ,_" ; ';'/::':;"'*;:;':dj~<:"L "'~";'. " ~ $ %t.~ constructed of asphalt or crushed stone with an approved supporting base, which will be reviewed during site plan review. Walking path must be designed with clear and open site lines in order to avoid blind spots/corners. Landscaping along the pathway should be maintained (at maturity) at a height no greater than three feet for shrubbery and lower than a height of seven feet for tree canopies. AGRICULTURE: Property is in the Southern Watershed Area. Soils in this area are poorly drained. Building site development on this soil is limited by severe wetness. Shallow excavations, dwellings, roads and lawns may experience problems with wetness. (NOTE: this issue will be addressed through engineering calculations and detailed site design during site plan review through the Development Services Center, should this application be approved). SCHOOLS: School Current Capacity Generation 1 Change 2 Enrollment Three Oaks Elementary 608 * 14.7 14 Princess Anne Middle 1542 1468 8.4 8 Kellam High 2388 1839 11.4 11 1 "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). . Three Oaks Elementary capacity is currently being calculated based on the finished building layout and the initial student population that began school here in September 2005. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Transition Area I Princess Anne. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "Policies of this Comprehensive Plan have been designed to ensure that the Transition Area continues to be a well-planned area. Employment, mixed use, and residential centers, each with its own open space and trail system, will be clustered along and connected to the public greenway offering a variety of quality home and. work environments," (p. 143, Policy Document). The application for a conditional rezoning proposing 49 residential units on a 49.32 +/- parcel is in keeping with the policies outlined for the Transition Area in the City's Comprehensive Plan. "Within the Transition Area, developers are encouraged to cluster housing and employ the most creative planning and development techniques," (p. 141, Policy Document). <>.; :.> MATHEWS GREEN ASSOOiATES, Lit.C. (',- ," : "/!l!(\ fAg~nt:ia, It ""\17 ", ' 4 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the submitted proffers provided below. The applicant has worked with staff to provide a proposal that conforms to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The allowable density for the area is one dwelling unit per developable acre provided the development meets certain criteria defined within the Comprehensive Plan. The developer strives for a minimum of 50% open space, which is used to mask the development from the road and to provide a public passive recreational opportunity in the form of the proffered open space dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach, keeping a substantial amount of trees and obscuring the view of the future homes. The Transition Area "Matrix" was used to evaluate the proposal's consistency with land use and design goals for the Transition Area. The result was a score of 0.99 dwelling units per acre. This score translates to a total of 49 units for this 49.32 acre site. Staff concludes that this proposal is consistent with the recommendations contained within the TATAC report and as recommended in the Transition Area Design Guidelines. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to dedicate land to Nimmo Church as additional buffer when Princess Anne Road is realigned. The applicant worked with the two homeowners across Princess Anne Road next to Nimmo Church to relocate four of the residential lots to form a small neighborhood at the time of the Princess Anne Road realignment. The applicant also coordinated with the adjacent property owner across Mathews Green to provide a better access on to Princess Anne Road for both properties. The applicant did try to consolidate the stormwater management facility with the existing neighborhood's facility but could not due to the soil conditions. The architectural elevations are in keeping with proposals for the Transition Area, and the proposed dwellings are of similar quality as those on surrounding properties. In summary, the proposal is compatible with the residential neighborhood adjacent and similar in appearance. 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," (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 developed, the Property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the conceptual plan titled "Rezoning Exhibit of Mathews Green", dated March 21, 2002, and prepared by Kellam Gerwitz, a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with City Planning Department (the "Conceptual Plan"). MATHEWS GREEN ASSqc;3j~TES.,l....C. ~-:S~nda1tera.t:z ~g~..P PROFFER 2: When developed, all residential lots numbered 1 through 45, inclusive, on the Conceptual Plan shall meet or exceed the following setbacks and lot dimensions: a. Front Yard Setback: Twenty Feet (20') b. Front Yard Setback for Unenclosed, Attached One-Story Porch: Ten Feet (10') c. Side Yard Setback: Ten Feet (10') d. Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Public Street: Twenty Feet (20') e. Rear Yard: Twenty Feet (20') f. Rear Yard for Accessory Structure: Five Feet (5') g. Minimum Lot Area: 11,700 square feet PROFFER 3: When developed, all residential lots numbered 46 through 49 on the Conceptual Plan shall contain a landscape buffer at least fifty feet (50') in width along the re-aligned portion of Princess Anne Road, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. PROFFER 4: On or before the date Grantor records a subdivision plat creating the residential/ots shown on the Conceptual Plan, Grantor shall dedicate to Grantee the portion of the Property along Mathews Green hatched and shown on the Conceptual Plan as "RNJ to be Dedicated to City." Grantor shall not be entitled to any compensation for the value of the Property dedicated to Grantee. PROFFER 5: On or before the date Grantor records a subdivision plat creating the residential lots shown on the Conceptual Plan, Grantor shall dedicate to Grantee a portion of the Property for the future re-alignment of Princess Anne Road. The portion of the Property to be dedicated shall be located within the area of the Property hatched and shown on the Conceptual Plan as "New Alignment Princess Anne Road". Grantor shall not be entitled to any compensation for the value of the Property dedicated to Grantee. PROFFER 6: On or before the date Grantor records a subdivision plat creating the residential lots shown on the Conceptual Plan, Grantor shall record a Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions"), which shall be administered and enforced by a homeowners association in which all landowners within Grantor's development shall be members' The Deed Restrictions shall be prepared in substantially the same form as the exhibit titfed "Proposed Deed Restrictions" exhibited to the City Council and on file with the City Attorney's Office. PROFFER 7: The Deed Restrictions shall require the establishment of an architectural review committee which shall administer and enforce the "Architectural Design Guidelines for Mathews Green Subdivision" dated August 28, 2005, a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the City Planning Department. The Architectural Design Guidelines shall apply only to the residential lots numbered 1 through 45, inclusive, on the Conceptual Plan and shall not apply to lots 46 through 49, inclusive PROFFER 8: The areas shown on the Conceptual Plan as "Homeowners Assoc. Open Space" (the "Open Space Area") shall be subject to restrictive covenants recorded which prohibit the use of such area for any purpose but recreation and open space use. The restrictive covenants shall run with the land and be in full force and effect for a period of at least fifty (50) years. The covenants shall become part of the deed to each lot or parcel within Grantor's development. The covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney, or his designee, and recorded before the first building permit in Grantor's development is issued. PROFFER 9: Grantor shall provide for maintenance of the Open Space area, either by the homeowners association, in which case all property owner's within Grantor's development shall be responsible for the costs and expenses of such maintenance, or by conveying an interest in the Open Space Areas to a public or private entity for such purposes. PROFFER 10: Grantor shall dedicate the area shown on the Conceptual Plan as "Open Space / Preservation Area' (the Preservation Area") to the City of Virginia Beach, no later than thirty (30) days after the issuance of the first building permit within Grantor's development. The Preservation Area shall be subject to restrictive covenants recorded which prohibit the use of such area for any purposes other than open space use or passive recreational uses, such as hiking trails, walking paths, or other similar uses which do not detract from the forestral nature of the Preservation Area. The restrictive covenants shall run with the land and be in full force and effect for a period of at least fifty (50) years. The covenants shall become part of the deed dedicating the Preservation Area to the City of Virginia Beach. The covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney, or his designee. PROFFER 11 : Grantor shall file and obtain approval of a rezoning petition to rezone the Open Space Area to P-1 Preservation District, as defined in the CZO, prior to the approval of any subdivision plat within Grantor's development or the issuance of a building permit. PROFFER 12: Further conditions lawfully imposed by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during detailed site plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they dictate the level of quality of the project. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated May 19, 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 a/l 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. MATHEWS GREEN ASSQ(3j'~TES;L4l.C. ~ ,:",,'{ ,.'. ":.ft' ~gndalte~Ft7 ,... .Rag:~8 7$~~:~fj~~: ;~" AERIAL OF SITE LOCAtJQN:. r::~~'l~';,:~{~~:&i~,,;.:' ;. """',' '".""', """"'-""'.' . MATHEWS GREEN AssQciAT:Ep, Ll.c': i;f ~""< ~~ncjaI17 . ",9 ....-<<\ ,lil -1 \., \ "'\"1 .\J \ ' ,.. -\:\ \ .~ .,; ~. .. \ \ ~ _\0 ".\~~._~ .\ ~ u '" u ~ ~ \J ~ - ;~ ~ ~!~Il ~~~" ~ ~ i 'l \ s pv.N RE\lISEO SINCE pv.NING COMMISS~C?N ~see neyi page for revIsion) - , \. ~. &, \a . .".,.--~-- - . ",,!>-.\-IeNS GREE",!>-SSQClMES, \...\... ~enda \tern ,. '.,' page . . PROPOSED S\iEP~ it~~ \\\ '" r i,;:..l,~;:,1~~~ ~ ~:a-*,;J~;'l~~,~;~;~,~ ~',;'tS(~.6~$ ~\~~~;( ~%~Hr - , '~" ' f~ ~~ <1:"'" ^~. ~~t ~ ? ~to;' ~ ~i.S'1~ ';. - :.: ~ ~~ :;~~ if.' $, ~., €% ,;;<~ 'i~~::;.::;tl ~Y4 ,!~e..~'<.;'; /~:... ~ f: ~ ~ ~~ ~g ~ 0 ~~ <. ; ~"" '4'" 1.~ ~'~ "" .,~ , . . 1 \ ~ tf) i _ ~,z jloJoooo'u...1 -e""T""'u...1 1'$..J- ~ ~~V 2i 1\ .. ~ .,. " :;;. 'i! 1 _t <II ~l a % , PROPOSEO S'TE pLAN MI'- T\-IeNS GREEN I'-Ssqci....'TES. d-:.C. ,Agenda \tern. 1 i P rtA."" a~~i.1 - -,~ -~;~~~i:€ ~ :.; c./') " $ ~ ...t.Z ~: ....., u.J ~ hI LU ~f-tX rt <(u ~ << .;~ MATHEWS GREEN ASSOGJATES, At:l~nda I ~ '" ~ w U Z <( ~ 1- Z W -.J <( ::J I- a. w U $: \' ;;:['- MATHEWS GREEN AS SCXCj A TES, L.LG. ~enda It. 1.7 ..~::~ .d' MATHEWS GREEN ASSOeiATES. ' Agenda It . ,..p PROPOSED BUILDING ELE.~AtjQN~~:'" ,:/ .<: <.~~;~~~~;(;/. . MATHEWS GREEN ASSOOiATES,L!.C. (~enda It~l'Z " ':~. ".., ~<k~' -" ..,a~1rti.:S":.1,5 ,~~,::q;~~>~;,..:w, ", '8J;\L-i'Y)' 1 10/12/04 Modification to Conditional Use Permit for church Granted 06/26/90 Conditional Use Permit for Church Granted 2 08/05/03 Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage area Granted 3 11/27/01 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to AG-2 Granted 4 12/05/00 Conditional Use Permit for auto service Granted establishment 5 11/24/98 Modification of Conditions Granted 03/26/90 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to B-1A Granted 6 11/24/95 Conditional Use Permit for home occupation Withdrawn 7 11/12/95 Conditional Use Permit for auto service station Granted 09/25/90 Conditional Use Permit for gas & car wash Granted 8 1 0/23/89 Conditional Rezoning from R-20 to 0-2 Granted Reconsideration of CRZ from R-3 to 0-1 9 04/25/88 Street Closure Granted 10 08/27/86 Downzone to AG-1/ AG-2 Granted ZONING HISTORY MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 17 Page 16 I 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) Mathews Green Assoicales, LLC Charles F. Burroughs, III Richard Burroughs Robert S. Kellam 1MIliam C, Gerwitz Edward A. Chaplain 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entit? relationship with the applicant (Attach list if necessary) - \~ne I 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. Ust the property owner name followed by the names of afl officers, members, trustees, partners, ate. below: (Attach list if necessary) jsame as Applicant I 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entit? relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) \ I 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 Condftional Rezon;ng Application Page 11 0112 Re~ised 9'1/2004 z o I ( ~ U I . ~ =-- ~ c;...:, Z I I Z o N ga ~ o I I f-4 . I Q ~ U l' 1 MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, LLC. Agenda Itern 17 PagEr 17 z o I I ~ U I I ~ ~ ~ t..:) Z I I Z o N ga ~ o I I F--t J I Q Z o u DISCLOSURE STATE 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) Kellam Gerwitz - engineering and survey services Troutman Sanders LLP - legal services 1 UParent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code 9 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means ua 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 (Hi) 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 S 2.2-3101, CERTIFlCA nON: 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 Rackage. MAT~S GREEN. ASSOCIATES, LLC By: \<- ~ Applicant's Signature Richard Burroughs. Manager Print Name Property Owner's Signature Qf different than applicant) Print Name Conditional Rezoning Application Page 12 of 12 . Revised 911/2004 X MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, L.LC. Agenda Item 17 Page 18 ~ 1essage Page 1 of 1 Karen Prochilo .. -~"-~-~~""..__...__.~.~----_...-._~y-^~--,-,._--_.,-~_..,---""---_., --_.^-" ..- .~.- ',~,.._._w....___.'_'~~~, ... w~. ___v._"_'~_'_"__"''''''''''A'.._,~._.................,..._.._'.. _,,"_"'. _.._.._N_.._"'m .~, __~.'''''......" ~~. . ...' m,'_.__._~.>-,..-. _~.,,~.... _'~.,._..__,,__ From: Karen Darden [Karen@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:38 PM To: Karen Prochilo Subject: Developers of Matthew Green Subdivision Dear Ms. Prochilo & Virginia Beach City Council, I'm writing to you as one of the longtime residents of Three Oaks which is a proud & close-knit community of VB. We have a very active Civic League & truly represent the concerns of residents of 30aks. One of the . concerns of 30aks is a plan of the subject developers of Matthew Green (M/G) to connect through the streets of 30aks. I strongly recommend against the plan for the following reasons: 1. Safety of the residents, especially the children of 30aks will be endangered if non-residents drive through 30aks from a proposed connecting street of M/G. 2. Difficulty exiting off & on 30aks Drive will be compounded by the number of non-residents not just from M/G & also from other "Short-Cutters". Accidents will be frequent especially without a traffic light on the intersection of 30aks Dr & PIA Rd. 3. The ecstatic & curb appeal values of 250 homes in 30aks will be degraded if 3 Oaks Drive become "Public" to non-residents. Sincerely & Signed, DC Santos 2220 Swaying Limb Lane, VB 23456 427-9224 c::==. 6/8/2006 Page 1 of 1 Karen Prochilo From: Colvinclan5@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 3:12 PM To: kprpchil@vbgov.com; Ruth H. Smith Subject: RE: Matthews Green To whom it may concern, We are residents of Three Oaks neighborhood who have lived here for 19 years. I have great concerns for Matthews Green to be opened up into our existing neighborhood. My children attend Three Oaks Elementary School. We are in the walking zone for this school. I am not very happy that our neighborhood does not have sidewalks and the school system allows this to happen, however, if Matthews Green is opened up into our neighborhood, that will create more traffic for our children to deal with while walking to and from school in the street. Also, it will create a better target for our neighborhood to have crime because there will be more than one way in and out. I do not understand why the city is saying they have to show the opening when there have been recently developed neighborhoods next to each other that do not open up into each other (off Holland Road and Princess Anne Road). We are totally against Matthews Green being opened up into our neighborhood. Sincerely, Bob and Cheryl Colvin ~ 6/812006 Karen Prochilo From: Vic Morkunas [victorp1 @cox.net] Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 11 :59 AM To: Jim Reeve Cc: Karen Prochilo Subject: Mathews Green Development Page 1 of 1 ---~--.~-.-_--'."..,-.,.~",-~,.._--~-~'-,~-~~.---~,........,.....-.. I am a retired VB police officer who has livied in Three Oaks for 21 years. On June 14, a re-zoning application is set to be presented for the development of :"Mathews Green", directly adjacent to Three Oaks and my property. I request that you seriously consider denying this re-zoning (if passed) by the commission. You have undoubtedly heard the saying, "when is enough....enough?" Please take a stand and vote ENOUGH. Thank you for your time and consideratian........Vic Markunas 2201 Shingle Wood Way VB 23456 c::=.. 6/12/2006 Page 1 of2 Karen Prochilo Sent: To: From: kathi & pete canupp [Icanupp@cox.net] Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:50 PM Ruth H. Smith; ablowich@mindspring.com; kejo425@aol.com; Karen Prochilo; Gary Reich; tom&joanne stone stone; Chris & Amparo Reich Subject: Mathews Green/development City Council Members & Planning Commission Members, THANKS PLANNING COMMISSION for having a NOON meeting on June 14th, real convenient for those who have to work and pay their bills and rising city taxes!!!! This is the last week of school for city school employees and not a good time to be taking time off from work. STOP!!!!! this ridiculous over population of Virginia Beach!!!!! Maintain the TRANSITION GUIDELINES. Citizens of Virginia Beach, homeowners associations and civic leagues are awakening and we are beginning to unite to fight the handful of people who have positioned themselves and their cronies on City Council and the Planning Commission. I am APPALLED by the audacity of the Planning Commission who overtly ignore the petitions of homeowners associations and civic leagues who sign petitions and send representatives to speak on their behalf. These-citizens' lives are negatively impacted by decisions made by a handful of arrogant people on the Planning Commission We don't need the Mathews Green development or more than double the density in Sherwood Lakes, a huge contemporary WAVE church on Seaboard Road, more retail shops and we cetainly don't need more traffic congestion. Traffic congestion on Princess Anne Road is bad enough right now. A few years ago, it took a teacher who lived in Three Oaks four minutes to drive from the entrance of Three Oaks to North Landing elementary school. It now takes her from 20-25 minutes to get in front of North Landing Elementary School and then she might sit in traffic an additional 5-8 minutes waiting to turn into the school driveway. I, too, live in Three Oaks, and I used to turn left on Princess Anne Road to get to Holland. I now go up London Bridge to Dam Neck and then tum right onto Bolland. Jim Arnhold, the developer who wants to double the density in Sherwood Lakes was on the transition guidelines committee. Now, he and his attorney, Eddie Bourdon, appear to have the Planning Commission in their pockets as the Planning Commission has approved their plans and ignores the pleas ofthe citizens of Virginia Beach, the Hozneowners Associations and the Civic Leagues and the Transition Guidelines. Of course, they will say these are "just guidelines". Obviously, guidelines needed to be established in order to retain a rural atmosphere and to slow high density developments from being built in southern Virginia Beach. It is a very sad day in Virginia Beach when the citizens cannot trust the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the transition guidelines. I watched with dismay and overwhelming anger as the attorney, Eddie Bourdon, and the City Planning Commission approved a 77 unit condominium to be built on Shore Drive near Pleasure House Road after hearing the objections and suggestions of the civic leagues and homeowner association members present their concerns. The citizens of Virginia Beach are disgusted with the handful of people in city government, the developers and their attorneys ruining our city with overdevelopment, inadequate roads and over- crowded schools just to line their pockets with more money. Who suffers as they get richer??? The citizens of Virginia Beach do. It appears your philosophy is, "If their is a tree, cut it down;ifthere is open green space, build on it". c:::=. NO mure developments, No more traffic!!!! No more cutting down trees!!!! 6/12/2006 Page 2 of2 Sincerely, Lee & Kathi Canupp Residents of Virginia Beach: Three Oaks c=::.. 6/12/2006 Message Page 1 of 1 Karen Prochilo From: Karen Darden [Karen@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:38 PM To: Karen Prochilo Subject: Developers of Matthew Green Subdivision Dear Ms. Prochilo & Virginia Beach City Council, I'm writing to you as one of the longtime residents of Three Oaks which is a proud & close-knit community of VB. We have a very active Civic League & truly represent the concerns of residents of 30aks. One of the concerns of 30aks is a plan of the subject developers of Matthew Green (M/G) to connect through the streets of 30aks. I strongly recommend against the plan for the following reasons: 1. Safety of the residents, espeCially the children of 30aks will be endangered ff non-residents drive through 30aks from a proposed connecting street of MfG. 2. Difficulty exiting off & on 30aks Drive will be compounded by the number of non-residents not just from MfG & also from other "Short-Cutters". Accidents will be frequent especially without a traffic light on the intersection of 30aks Dr & PIA Rd. 3. The ecstatic & curb appeal values of 250 homes in 30aks will be degraded if 3 Oaks Drive become "Public" to non-residents. Sincerely & Signed, DC Santos 2220 Swaying Limb Lane, VB 23456 427 -9224 c=::.. 6/8/2006 Karen Prochilo rom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: josephg Uosephg@cox.net] Wednesday, June 07, 20063:45 PM Karen Prochilo josephg@cox.net FW: Update RE: Three Oaks Homeowners Petition To Oppose Connection Street from Mathews Green Hi Ms. Prochilo, 1. I have finished acquiring signatures re the subject petition. Have acquired 189 signatures from approximately 225 homes in Three Oaks to document the feelings of the majority of homeowners in Three Oaks for opposing the development of a Connection Street from the proposed Mathews Green to Three Oaks communities. Will provide the original 11 pages and copies at the hearing. How many copies do you need and would you confirm that the hearing is scheduled for June 14, 2006 at 12:00 pm. Which Building and room number? Should I present this Petition to the Planning Commission or should the President of Three Oaks Homes Association, Dennis Meligonis, submit this Petition? Must we wait until June 14, or could I bring it to you prior to hearing? 2. After our Three Oaks Homeowners' Meeting on June 6, 2006 at 7:45 pm, the Mathews Green representatives presented the latest proposed Development Plan (Drawing). The entrance/exit to/from Mathews Green was changed from the previous drawing, however, the drawing still showed a Connection Street into Three Oaks at end of Kindling Hollow Road. Since the subject Petition substantiates the Homeowners opposition to construction of the Connection Street to Three Oaks, the developers stated that they would remove this cut-through street from their drawing if the Planning Commission would permit them to do'so. Dennis Meligonis stated that the High Gate Green cut-through street to the proposed Sherwood Forrest community was removed from their proposed drawing plan. Does the Planning Commission require the developer to show a Connection Street to Three Oaks? Thank you for all your consideration and time. J and Patti Giancola, 427-0245 josephg@cox.net ---Original Message--- From: Karen Prochilo rmailto:KProchil@vbQov.coml Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1 :03 PM To: josephg Subject: RE: Update RE: Three Oaks Homeowners Petition To Oppose Connection Street from Mathews Green Hello BJ & Patti Giancola, Thank you for keeping me up to date. Please make sure that you provide the original and copies when you come to the hearing. Sounds like you are handling this process well. Any additional questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me at the 385-4298. (our phone numbers are in the process of changing). Sincerely Karen Prochilo From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: josephg [mailto:ioseoho@cox.netl Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:52 PM Karen Prochilo Ruth H. Smith; Jim Reeve; ioseoha@cox.net Update RE: Three Oaks Homeowners Petition To Oppose Connection Street from Mathews Green -----Original Message---- From: josephg rmailto:iosephQ@cox.netl Sent: Wednesday, January 18,200612:45 PM To: kprochil@vbQov.com Cc: ctvcncl@"vbQov.com; ireeve@vbQov.com; iosephq@cox.net Subject: Update RE: Three Oaks Homeowners Petition To Oppose Connection Street from Mathews Green c:::=. With reference to my January 3, 2006 email, we have acquired approximately 100 signatures from Three Oaks homeowners for the attached Petition to oppose the development of a connection street to Three Oaks from Mathews Green. I was just informed that a meeting with developers of Mathews Green and Three Oaks residents is set for Monday, January 23 at 6:00 p.m. at Three Oaks Elementary School. If there is a good turnout for this meeting, I expect to get many 1 additional signatures on the subject Petition. The final accumulation of signatures on the subject Petition will demonstrate how the majority of residents in Three Oaks feel regarding the development of a connection street from Mathews Green. Thank you for assistance in this matter. Sincerely, BJ & Patti Giancola, 2228 Kindling Hollow Road, 427-0245 Email: ;osephQ@cox.net (Primary); biqiancola@wans.net (Secondary) << File: Petition - Oppose Matthews Green Development Plan 16Dec05.doc >> c==. 2 Message Page 1 of 1 Karen Prochilo From: Karen Darden [Karen@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:38 PM To: Karen Prochilo Subject: Developers of Matthew Green Subdivision Dear Ms. Prochilo & Virginia Beach City Council, I'm writing to you as one of the longtime residents of Three Oaks which is a proud & close-knit community of VB. We have a very active Civic League & truly represent the concerns of residents of 30aks. One of the concerns of 30aks is a plan of the subject developers of Matthew Green (M/G) to connect through the streets of 30aks. I strongly.recommend against the plan for the following reasons: 1. Safety of the residents, especially the children of 30aks will be endangered if-nan-residents drive through 30aks from a proposed connecting street of M/G. 2. Difficulty exiting off & on 30aks Drive will be compounded by the number of non-residents not just from M/G & also from other "Short-Cutters". Accidents will be frequent especially without a traffic light on the intersection of 30aks Dr & PIA Rd. 3. The ecstatic & curb appeal values of 250 homes in 30aks will be degraded if 3 Oaks Drive become "Public" to non-residents. Sincerely & Signed, DC Santos 2220 Swaying Limb Lane, VB 23456 427-9224 c=:: 6/13/2006 Page 1 of 1 Karen Prochilo ,_~~_,,,~_~~,__,,,,,~_'___~'''f'__'~'N_W__._..,,,._~,,_._._,,~~.,,~_.__~_._U_'''_'^'.. ~__~ .~_~_P__..,,___.'.._.~' '.._.__,,_......_".A.,."__~,_~.__.--,-_.. h__'_ _.""."_"_'''''''_''~''.'h_~''_'~'__''_''^'_'''~_~. _._.".~_.--_..."._.~ From: Colvinclan5@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 05, 20063:12 PM To: kprpchil@vbgov.com; Ruth H. Smith Subject: RE: Matthews Green To whom it may concern, We are residents of Three Oaks neighborhood who have lived here for 19 years. I have great concerns for Matthews Green to be opened up into our existing neighborhood. My children attend Three Oaks Elementary School. We are in the walking zone for this school. I am not very happy that our neighborhood does not have sidewalks and the school system allows this to happen, however, if Matthews Green is opened up into our neighborhood, that will create more traffic for our children to deal with while walking to and from school in the street. Also, it will create a better target for our neighborhood to have crime because there will be more than one way in and out. I do not understand why the city is saying they have to show the opening when there have been recently developed neighborhoods next to each other that do not open up into'each other (off Holland Road and Princess Anne Road). We are totally against Matthews Green being opened up into our neighborhood. Sincerely, Bob and Cheryl Colvin c== 6/8/2006 Nimmo United Methodist Church 2200 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Telephone: (757) 427-1765 Email: Nimmo@pinn.net Est. 1791 May 15, 2006 Dr. Charles H. Smith, III Pastor Ms. Karen Prochilo Planning Department City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 MAY 1 5 2.006 I!' Re: Application for Rezoning - Mathews Green Associates, LC 50-Acre Parcel Located at Mathews Green & Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach Dear Ms. Prochilo: On behalf of the members of Nimmo United Methodist Church, we wish to express our support for the zoning applications of the above-referenced property in accordance with the submitted zoning plan. We have met with representatives of Mathews Green Associates and have reviewed this plan with them. We are delighted that they have expressed a desire to give a portion of their property to our church to buffer the church from the existing Princess Anne Road. Further, the dedication of the newly aligned Princess Anne Road right-of-way moves the traffic and related noise further away from our building. We appreciate their locating the preservation area across from our church in such a manner as to maintain the low density environment around our church. W~ think this plan is well thought out and suits the character of our church and the surrounding area. We would hope that the city officials both at the Planning and City Council level would agree. Thanks so much for your consideration. c:=:::: Very truly yours, ~<-=>'" ')}.-::'IJ '. I _ I ~ -' /11 . J-t1f r..k:~,-, /. 1/ iL.l:~-0't./ EIi~~th W. Weaver, Trustee Nimmo United Methodist Church ew The Mission of Nimmo United Methodist; Church is to make Disciples of Jesus Christ. Karen Prochilo -=rom: Jent: To: Subject: Renee Swinson [Renee_Swinson@nexnet.navy.mil) Tuesday, February 14,200612:57 PM Karen Prochilo; Ruth H. Smith Matthews Green Rezoning and Development Plan Ms. Prochilo and City Council Members, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed development plan of Matthew's Green, adjacent to Three Oaks. My concern is specific to the plan of a connecting street in Matthews Green to Three Oaks via the North end of Kindling Hollow Road. I currently live at the end of the street where the road is proposed to go through and have 2 great concerns. First and foremost, I have 2 very young children and fear for their safety because the opening up of our street puts us directly on a thoroughfare. The number one checkpoint for my husband and I purchasing a house was that we were not on a high traffic road. Within a neighborhood, when you have a long street drivers tend to disregard the speed limit and I fear my children's safety with cars passing in and out of the neighborhood at high speeds. I have visions of one of my kids stepping out from behind the mailbox and getting struck by a car. We are also in a walking zone to Three Oaks Elementary and our streets contain no sidewalks; therefore, the children are directly exposed to this new traffic pattern. My second concern is how congested our entrance/exit to the neighborhood will be with yet another neighborhood using it. Currently during high traffic times, it's a chore to get in and out. I don't see how the connection would prove to be beneficial to Matthew's Green homeowners since they'll have an exit right down the street, so this can only make a bad situation worse. I think the connection would be used more frequently by our homeowners trying to get to the shopping center; and if we're all opposed, then we should ~e the deciding factor. Thanks for listening and hopefully considering my concerns. VIR, Renee Swinson Three Oaks Homeowner ***************************defiant************************************ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or agency to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the Navy Exchange Service Command e-mail administrator. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. messaging support team@nexnet.navy.mil ********************************************************************** c::= 1 Page 1 of 1 Karen Prochilo '---'-'*~"'--__~_-e--'-""""",____~_"""__.__",,w_...__....w._~_-'~'_'_-_'h""_'_~____'~~""'__~'__N~~_""""_~~,,"._,_.~.h__~"_.__ From: Barbara Wright [clickclick18@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:20 PM To: Ruth H. Smith Cc: Karen Prochilo Subject: Proposed Matthews Green Development On Jan. 23, I attended a HOA meeting held by the Three Oaks Board. it was to discuss the above mentioned development. Weare against any access to our roads over the creek, which I understand most of it is Wetlands. It would make sense to have the homeowner access the development either directly on to Princess Ann Rd or to build the entrance at N ewstead, which leads directly to Nimmo Parkway. If they came through our development they would have to access Princess Anne Rd which is our only access to and from our homes. we do not need 100 more cars , at least, from anew place, when we haven't seen the impact of the new Chelsea Place which has just begun to sell homes. If you haven't been on princess anne at rush hour you need to treat yourself to this experience. We appreciate you taking all the facts into consideration. I also wish to refer you to today Beacon featured story. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Barbara A Wright --~--'-------------:------,---_.,---~._~"_._-,~---_._.- ----~._--_.._..,,,y_.._--~_._~_._._----_..__..__..,..~.."-"""-"'~'--<--- Find just what you're after with the new, more precise MSN Search - try it now! c:= 5/1912006 '.,.. ~'.'." :""" "'r''''" December 29, 2005 DEe :1 0 Z005 Department of Planning Municipal Center - Building 2 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 no' ,~\Or\ -\[;',O;f-"";-\ -c'i': :" . ", . '4 ~ !'~ 1,,','\ ,1, :. '"".1 ~.,' ~ ... ;,....\ ~.I t~; ~. ; 1. .iL.Jj.~1J. '~.1. ":;.1.J "f ~:......; .::'~"" j._.;~.j JL.. ':(,.;~ ~CE:I\11~ Re: Matthews Green community Ms. Karen Prochilo The community of Three Oaks has been informed that a new community, Matthews Green, is being proposed adjacent to Three Oaks. According to the builder's proposal, 49 homes will be constructed and will connect to the north end of Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. - The proposed construction of 49 homes on the 49 acres does not meet the transition zone requirements. The builder has shown a high density of homes compacted into an area of approximately 23 acres. The remaining 26 acres will remain as forest due to questionable wetlands. The 23-acre site also includes walking paths, forest area, drainage, sidewalks and the street. This places the homes on sites of 13,000 to 15,000 sqft. The transition zone indicates that homes should be 1 per acre which are not all compacted to one side of the parcel. A neighborhood in the transition zone should have a unique design not a typical cookie cutter layout; the proposal fails to meet this requirement. The homes should also have a set back from the street, this would be impossible when constructing large homes of3500 to 4000 sqft on a 13,000 sq ft lot. Again the proposal fails to meet the transition zone requirements. The Three Oaks community has 225 homes on true "20,000" square foot lots. Also this proposed community does not comply with the Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) directions. Weare also opposed to this new neighborhood connecting to Three Oaks at Kindling Hollow Road. We believe this additional entrance/exit into our community would increase traffic conservatively by 25 % and would directly affect the residents of Three Oaks. · Three Oaks at the present time has a very low crime rate, and we feel this is a direct result of being a community that is closed to fluid traffic. With having only one entrance/exit, it is a major deterrent for criminal activity as our road layout does not allow for an 'escape' route to Princess Anne road at the back of our community. c:=- · Three Oaks is currently a walking zone for our children attending Three Oaks Elementary school. Increase traffic would affect the safety of our children walking or riding their bikes to/from school without the benefit of sideways. The children from Matthews Green will also be impacted by this safety issue. We would support a pedestrian path that would provide access for the children to walk to school. Kindling Hollow road could very easily become a major thoroughfare which is not the desire of the residents on Kindling Hollow road or the Three Oaks community. The developer of this property has indicated the storm water will be diverted to the existing canal along Three Oaks. The capacity of this drainage system may not be able to provide proper run off during a major rain event. This drainage system supports the pond infrastructure system for the entire lbree Oaks community. Several areas of the canal are private property that extends beyond the canal over into the proposed construction area. These home owners have indicated that they wish to maintain the integrity of their private property. In summation, we oppose the current size of the lots and usage of purchased property of Matthews Green. We feel it does not follow the guidelines proposed in the transition plans or AICUZ of Virginia Beach. This development project as it is currently proposed would not be in the best interest of the Three Oaks community or that of the future of Virginia Beach. Even with the necessary lot size modifications needed with this project, we are adamantly opposed to the connection of this new neighborhood through Kindling Hollow Road. We are sure the voted representatives ofthe Planning Commission will consider the general consensus of all the residents of Three Oaks. Sincerely, . . 17 b~ ~,~ Dennis Meligonis, ~esident Three Oaks Homes Association P.O. Box 6377 Virginia Beach, V A 23456 cc: Insta11ation Commander Naval Air Station Oceana 1750 Tomcat Blvd. Virginia Beach, V A 23460 David & Mary Lou Diaz 2201 Wild Oak Crescent Three Oaks Subdivision Virginia Beach, 23456 4276919 ~~~ Qt~ w', ", y.,'..... ,:'.,A ./ \~.) ~\... ~\~ ~~Q (j ~ 'It 't<:O~' ,.. ).. \';<C.:--J ~. Ms Karen M Prochi10 Community Design Planner Department of Planning City of Virginia Beach Subject: Mathews Green Properties LLC Development proposal Ref: Edwin L Jarvis letter dated November 22, 2005 sent to you Dear Ms Prochilo, Weare writing this letter to formally inform you of our concurrence with the concerns stated by Mr. Jarvis in his letter to you and our support of his recommendations. We are deeply concerned with the loss of privacy and the impact that further sediment outflow from the proposed development will have on the current shallow drainage canal alongside our properties without any planned dredging or widening. The conversion of the canal to a lake that Mr. Jarvis proposes in his letter would certainly seem the most logical solution. The development property owners would maintain their side of the lake as we currently maintain ours, we would still have some semblance of privacy (distance verses current tree line) and the two communities would blend nicely. We were informed by Mr. Kellem and Mr. Burrows that the City Planners have a problem extending the easement between our property line and the development because the City wants a single large wild life sanctuary to the north of the development. I believe the City should consider giving us as taxpayers a little more consideration for our privacy and quality of life some (a small percentage as I see it) of that land for half of the lake on the development side. It would not take much away from the sanctuary and wild life can still use it (fish and water fowl). Thank you for your consideration. David & Mary Lou Diaz ~ ~/J(~~~~ c=: Karen Prochilo From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: josephg Oosephg@cox.net] Wednesday, November 23,20056:16 PM Karen Prochilo bjgiancola@wans.net FW: Concerns of Three Oaks Homeowners Regarding Matthew's Green Rezoning and Development Plan ----Original Message----- From: josephg rmailto:iosephQ@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:41 AM To: ctvcncl@vbqov.com Cc: kprochil@vbQov.com; swinsonscw.cox.net; karen@cox.net; tavlorl@nehc.med.navv.mil; tkemman@aol.com Subject: Concerns of Three Oaks Homeowners Regarding Matthew's Green Rezoning and Development Plan CONCERNS OF THREE OAKS HOMEOWNERS REGARDING MATTHEW'S GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRIMARY CONCERNS: A proposed development plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented by the Matthew's Green developers to the Three Oaks Homeowner's Association officers and some homeowners. This plan specified the construction of a connecting street to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. If such a street were constructed, the following scenarios would result. 1. In order to save time by avoiding traffic lights at Elson Green and General Booth, Matthew's Green residents who must commute back and forth from the Municipal Center area or Holland/Princess Anne Roads would take short cuts through Three Oaks on Kindling Hollow Road, Tree Garden Way. and Three Oaks Drive. After Princess Anne Road is expanded into 4 lanes with a medium, the Matthew's Green residents will not have a convenient entry or exit through the proposed main front entrance. 2. In order to save time by avoiding traffic light at General Booth (Seven Eleven), residents of Three Oaks would also use Kindling Hollow Road as a short cut to run errands to Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and other Red Mill Commons shopping stores and eating places. 3. The significant increase in the traffic pattern exiting and entering Three Oaks Drive from General Booth will eventually result in a serious fatal accident at this entrance to Three Oaks. This entrance/exit to Three Oaks is currently very dangerous for anyone trying to exit Three Oaks onto General Booth. 4. The significant increase in the traffic patterns as described above on Kindling Hollow Road, Tree Garden Way, and Three Oaks Drive will eventually result in the death of one of the many young children that frequently play and ride bicycles on these streets. SECONDARY CONCERNS: 1. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission require the developer to build their houses in accordance with the "2003 Comprehensive Plan Policy Document for Princess Anne (Transition Arear. i.e. "The maximum calculated residential density in the Transition Area is one dwelling unit per developable acre". 2. We request that the developer provide attractive and protective buffers along the proposed border with Three Oaks. 3. In addition to creating an increased threat to the safety and well-being of the human residents of Three Oaks, the increased traffic resulting from the development of a connecting street to Kindling Hollow Road would jeopardize the safety of groups of mallard ducks and other animals that travel on ground from the man-made lake area to our house and neighbors for daily feeding. We already had one fatal accident on Tree Garden Way where Olivia (a named large duck who could not fly) was struck by a car and died last year. A bench with a nameplate in her memory was placed by the lake c:=:next to Tree Garden Way. On behalf of ourselves and other Three Oaks residents, we thank you very much for considering the above concerns regarding the Matthew's Green Rezoning and Development Project. 1 Sincerely, BJ & Patti Giancola, 427-0245 (2228 Kindling Hollow Road) t:::=" 2 Page 1 of 1 Karen Prochilo _":""',....",.,..,..~..__M.,..,....,<__..",_....^~.___'''_,.___~_.._rlA___..__~,..,_.,.-,__'_.....____,_.'_...___ '_',-..._,_.A~_. """~'___~_"_'____"'_'_".'______'''_''__''''__'_'''''''_~~'..__ From: Seitz, Tommy (US SSA) [Tommy_Seitz@NORSHIPCO.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:58 PM To: Karen Prochilo Cc: Ruth H. Smith Subject: Mathews Glen Development Ms. Prochilo, I'm unable to attend this Wednesday's planning commission session concerning the subject development, but would like to voice my strong concern and objection to re-zoning this area for further development along this area of Princess Anne Road/General Booth Blvd. I've been a resident of Three Oaks since 1986 and have been there since its inception in the mid 80's. It was the first development below the "green line'! back then which controlled growth. This rural atmosphere at the time is what brought me to Three Oaks as I was getting away from traffic that existed from my previous residence in the Little Neck/Kings Grant area. While I wouldn't have expected growth to just stop with the Three Oaks development, I did not visualize that every little available parcel of land would be available and zoned for further residential development. At some point, I would have expected a slow down of the development of the area (since that was the purpose of the green line originally) and enough would have been enough. We have reached that time, enough is enough! Since Three Oaks development, I've seen four other developments (High Gate Greens, High Gate Crossings, Condo's across from 7-11, and most recently Chelsea Place) within a half mile stretch of Princess Anne Road occur. It appears if there's the slightest parcel of land available for development, the city is allowing it to happen. Those developments along with South Gate and Three Oaks have created an enormous traffic problem. The bottom line, Princess Anne Road leading back around to the Court House area can no longer support the traffic that already exists in the area. Each and every day, it's a constant battle to get out of Three Oaks onto Princess Anne Road (and I'm not promoting any traffic light). When finally able to make a left turn onto Princess Anne Road, we face long 10 to 15 minute trips to go a mile to get to the Court house area, a 2 mile journey at most. That is unreasonable and unacceptable. In closing, I kindly request and encourage the Planning Commission to re-consider re-zoning this area for any residential development. The area is over populated as it is. If the Planning Commission unfortunately does allow this happen, then either the widening of Princess Anne Road from General Booth back to the Courthouse and/or finishing the Nimmo Parkway cut through (neither of which I don't think the city wants to do) has to occur prior to this development. Additionally, it is also requested that Mathews Green not be allowed to connect with any roads from the Three Oaks development. Sub divisions are such and should remain independent of each other and not act as thorough fares for other sub-divisions. Having to live with the existing traffic on Princess Anne Road is bad enough, we do not need further traffic in our sub-division. If you have any questions. please feel free to contact me. Regards, Thomas (Tommy) M. Seitz, Jr. Vice President Contracts & Comm'l Sales Phone (757)494-2943 Fax (757)494-4030 r:==. 6/1412006 PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2, 2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeowner's Association. This plan showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residentslhorneowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. ,..-- '---- NAME (printed) ADDRESS (Street) SIGNATURE & DATE S UmrnarCl ~6E J Paq e 1 ct.1 ->7 ~ ';{3 3 Old. 4 Ol.a 5 lit, " ~3 1 15 8 1/ q ~3 JD ID JI -~ J~2.. ~ ^ Jgq a., lAf /I 1, 2D 6 Ie D u Rt~e I PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2, 2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeo,\\-1ler's Association. This plan showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a cOlmection street would cause significant increased traffic tl:lrough our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residents/homeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. NAME (printed) . .]61Ju"'f-lt./ .G; A #(uI-A KA~~t\J KR-\E.b\!.R.. rr~~ Ri\\ ADDRESS (Street) SIGNATURE & DATE . "3 J 0b .2..}l8 Kc{VQl,.J."y~ f.fc:s~ F(p 'Z.s; \ \...\""1"fUZ I-.CM-...v G, 11' (2::t'" Leo.~ Lane 5l,? 2 32~ - 5~g lee-'; 6-e-t:fe:prt0 tv% . 1-7\,..~ 5t..{S "of /t.hJ& <; . 6-/}&;-t',:p. I i 2../ Page 2. PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2,2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeowner's Association. This plan showed the development ofa connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residents/homeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. NAME (Printed) I ItJtf llo,fimtr. ~ cJc..,t)QP~ A lit. of ~ r -! "" ADDRESS (Street) 22/35t\Jt1 /0.'//1/16 fill ?3;t: ~/(wocd !7-a{'( 0l-3.2 S fe, II';;n ~ /r, SIGNATURE & DATE 7 2.2.dO SWAVltJ~ 1.1MB LA. ,/f/O; ~6;6G / / tJ Or; J. - .J.O -O&, ~3 f.b.Je 3 PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2, 2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeowner's Association. This plan showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residents/homeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. NAME (printed) ADDRESS (Street) SIGNATURE & DATE ~c1 ~~4 PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2, 2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeowner's Association. This plan showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborho'od, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residents/homeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. NAME (printed) ADDRESS (Street) SIGNATURE & DATE t/f(JIO~ c:=:... :A:A Page 5 PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2, 2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeowner's Association. This plan showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residentslhomeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from South ate. NAME (Printed) ADDRESS (Street) r ,,/ /)irb'g' ~;).y~- {, 7f1'- <6 i 33 lie ~9C' PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2, 2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to t.i.e officers ofllie Three Oaks Homeowner's Association. This plan showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residents/homeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. NAME (printed) ADDRESS (Street) SIGNATURE & DATE ~3 ~ ~e1 PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2, 2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeowner's Association. This plan showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residents/homeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. NAME (Printed) ADDRESS (Street) SIGNATURE & DATE '1""'" t~' c>' J ) '1'-"" t.....'.I. :\ , j.lJ1 1:::/ t; //1 C C.J ,} , ~~ 1 .t/c>.,.-J/~I/ ~ c;~ ':1 l'Z..- ~\Nb\rot ~ 9..')0 ,,, L.~ft1'-i. l\ (,~ f ^' C~ ).J)a1 '-1f+l( A~r n ct. ~)'){6 ~ ,", 1;''/ " .1' / , ....f...,.(:..-- , ..-u-':' <-.. i": Ii II .; ~... .;\r.." J f3.D<t " 10.:- ,/" ), \"O-\((;-tJ I tl(tW ,"/ ,I 1--, 'I i , ~,- " 1,0' . -- It;) /hqe g PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN It On November 2, 2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeowner's Association. This plan showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residentslhomeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. NAME (Printed) ADDRESS (Street) SIGNATURE & DATE Z I wdd Oak. (!~;I e I I -fJatJe q PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2, 2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeowner's Association. This plan showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residents/homeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. NAME (printed) ADDRESS (Street) SIGNATURE & DATE / /~/06 c::::::::... ~3 Ibfe /() PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2, 2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeowner's Association. This plan showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Three Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residents/homeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. NAME (Printed) ADDRESS (Street) SIGNATURE & DATE J() R~Jf- " PETITION TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED MATTHEWS GREEN REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN On November 2,2005, the subject proposed plan to build 49 houses in approximately 25 acres adjacent to Three Oaks was presented to the officers of the Three Oaks Homeo\\-ner's Association. This pla..'1 showed the development of a connection street from the back of the proposed housing community to Kindling Hollow Road in Tnree Oaks. Such a connection street would cause significant increased traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion at the entrance/exit to Three Oaks, and increased safety issues for children who ride bikes and walk our streets with no sidewalks. The undersigned residents/homeowners in the Three Oaks neighborhood agree with this statement and are primarily opposed to the development of a connection street to Kindling Hollow Road and recommend that, if necessary, an entrance/exit into the proposed community be located off the Matthews Green street next to the Veterinary Hospital across from Southgate. NAME (printed) ADDRESS (Street) 'l ~~~ ~ &.t It-l Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of portions of Mathews Green Change of Zoning District Classification 2217 Mathews Green District 7 Princess Anne June 14,2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary. Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #16 & 17, Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Application of Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of portions of Mathews Green beginning at a point approximately 130 feet east of its intersection with Princess Anne Road and extending 274.73 feet in an easterly direction and the southwest quadrant of the cul-de-sac, approximately 100 feet east of Princess Anne Road, District 7, Princess Anne with four conditions; and Item #17, Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Application of Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-20 Residential District with a PD-H2 Overlay on property located at 2217 Mathews Green, District 7, Princess Anne with twelve proffers. Jeff Maynard: Thank you Mr. Strange. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jeff Maynard. For the record, my business address 222 Central Park A venue, Suite 2000. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Mathews Green Associates. I have with me Bob Kellam, Bill Gerwitz, Jim Hogan, and Charles Burroughs who are investors and or architects and engineers in this project. Briefly, if Mr. Kellam would step forward, I wanted to show you the aerial photograph of this property. I know that many of you are familiar with it. This is the old property of Virginia Mathews, which my client has purchased. It is an approximately 49V2-acre tract located along Princess Anne Road. Y Oil see that Nimmo Church is here. The Three Oaks community is this way. Princess Anne Road runs along the front and there is a 7-Eleven right here where Princess Anne Road turns to the south. The property is presently zoned agricultural. My clients would like to rezone this property from agricultural to R-20 with a PD-H2 Overlay. And if Bob would switch slides I'll show you briefly their site plan. This property is largely wooded and impacted by wetlands. We are located in the Transition Area and achieving density by meeting a 50 percent open space requirement. Approximately 17.28 acres is what we are calling a "preservation area" that will be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach, and then we have additional homeowners open space interior to the community that will allow us to achieve the 50 percent threshold. c::::::... Here are a couple of things about the application. Weare proposing 49 residential lots, 45 of them will be clustered on this side adjacent to or near the Three Oaks community. Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Page 2 c=:=. There are four additional lots that are not part of the same Homeowners Association but reserve for future development up along Princess Anne Road. The applicant is proposing a dedication of a little less than four acres of land for realignment of Princess Anne Road that we understand will be coming at some point in the future, as well as a dedication of approximately Y2 acre of land to preserve and protect Nimmo Church. The homes to be located on this area, and we will come back to that slide. I wanted to point out for you are brick colonial and design, Georgia Revival Architecture that will be high quality material such as brick or wood or real stucco. There won't be any ElF'S or any vinyl in the community. The homes will all be built on crawl spaces and will have either rear or side garages unless the garage is located farther back than the rear of the house that is located on that property. A couple of other items. The price ranges for this development is going to be in the $600,000-$800,000 range. So they are high quality materials and a very high quality development. If you would turn back to the slide, I wanted to let you know that we have met on four occasions with the Three Oaks community. I understand that a couple of their representatives are here, and I wanted to point out the issues that we have been able to negotiate with them and then focus on the last issue that we have come to an agreement on but I wanted to point out. Initially when our engineers and the applicant filed this application, the entrance was proposed along Princess Anne Road. They have spent considerable time during this process working with the city planning staff and traffic engineering department to come up with an acceptable alignment at the entrance along Princess Anne Road. That also is the reason for the street closure application that is a component of this overall development. The street closure has been negotiated with Dr. Francois who owns FM Associates and has a veterinarian practice there. He will be getting this section of the street closure and it will increase the size of his lot and will allow him to configure the entrance to his property through our development instead of the oddly shaped entrance that is presently located along Princess Anne Road. A couple of the issues we had and discussed with the community on. Several of the residents along the storm water pond were concerned about the size of these lots initially. We were able to expand it greatly. I will point out the average lot size in this community is approximately 16,000 square feet. The smallest is in the 11,000 square foot range. We have some that are over 20,000 square feet, and the larger ones are along this area. Another issue that was raised in the early session dealt with the buffering. And as pointed out, the owners of the property of Three Oaks, their property lines go to our side, I guess of the canal here, so they actually own this property here. There is going to be an existing strip of trees that will remain we will not be able to touch them as they are part of the other property owner's property. I will point out our open space, the Homeowners Association open space has connectivity with an internal trail system. There are sidewalks on both sides of the property. Probably the issues that we spent the most time on with the community deals with the connection of Kindling Hollow Road, which is here on the site plan. The residents of the neighborhood have objected strongly to that. They pretty much from day one and first meeting we had with them said they did not want our neighborhood to connect with theirs. As we have gone through the planning process, we understand that the City's subdivision ordinance requires us to show connectivity but I wanted to represent to you that if it's the will of the Commission and Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 3 the City Council, our applicant does not wish to show a vehicular connection. This morning there was some discussion whether we would be willing to install pedestrian connectivity such as bike trails or walking paths between the communities. We are, of course, willing to build a road. However, the residents of Three Oaks, I believe are opposed to that notion. So we would, again, seek your direction on that. I would point out that if connectivity is eliminated the change in the site plan would be that Mathews Way would be basically a loop road with a single entrance off of Princess Anne Road. We would eliminate this and it would become and these lots may change just a little bit but there would be no connection between the neighborhoods. There would be no cul-de- sac here as well. It would be just a loop road system. So, with that, I will standby for any questions and ask for your recommendation for approval. Barry Knight: Are there any questions for Mr. Maynard? Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: The same one I asked this morning. Is it not only going to be pedestrian friendly but bike friendly as well? Is the developer going to put in not only sidewalks for pedestrians but trails for bicycles? Not only in the open space that Parks and Recreation are going to do it but within the development itself along the streets? It is very important that they have bicycle access as well. Jeff Maynard: Our development will have trail systems here and sidewalks all the way around that will accommodate bicycle access. Eugene Crabtree: It will be large enough and wide enough for bicycles and use them as bike paths as well? Jeff Maynard: Yes. I would point out that we are going to dedicate this portion to the City. Eugene Crabtree: I understand that. But this is above and beyond what the City is going to do. Jeff Maynard: Right. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Maynard. Jeff Maynard: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Speaking in support of the application we have Robert Kellam. Robert Kellam: Actually, I was just asked to fill out a card, I have nothing to add. c=:::.. Joseph Strange: Good. Speaking in opposition, the first opposition is Dennis Meligonis. Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 4 Barry Knight: We1come sir. Dennis Meligonis: Good afternoon. Barry Knight: Please state your name for the record. Dennis Meligonis: I'm Dennis Meligonis. I'm the President of the Three Oaks Homes Association. This time I am representing the residents of the neighborhood and we do have several. I would like for them to stand please. Confirming with the developer, our opposition to this neighborhood is the connection to Kindling Hollow Road. Basically we have two reasons why we don't want that road connected. Three Oaks neighborhood is a little over 20 years old. We have a very, very low crime rate. WeJeel this is because of the one entrance and exit into the neighborhood, we haven't had any major crimes because we don't have an escape route but if you did connect the Kindling Hollow Road that would allow an escape route out of the back of our neighborhood. The second issue is we are in a school walking zone. We did have the new elementary school built behind our neighborhood. We don't have sidewalks in our neighborhood. So all of the children in the neighborhood have to walk on the streets to school. With the Kindling Hollow connector being in back of the neighborhood that would certainly cause a change in traffic patterns and certainly cause increase traffic to the back of the neighborhood where a majority of the students would be walking to school. Approximately in the last 24 months there have been several neighborhoods within a three-mile radius of Three Oaks. Some of them are Princess Anne Quarter, Victoria Park in Virginia Beach, High Court, Chelsea Place, and Seaboard Forest. All of these are single entrance and exit neighborhoods and we feel we should have the same consideration as those neighborhoods with one entrance and one exit. Like I said, in summary our neighborhood is over 20 years. We really, really like our one entrance and exit. We hope that you make this recommendation to City Council. Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any questions? Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: You say you're objecting to the vehicular access but would you object to a pedestrian access from that neighborhood to your neighborhood with that connectivity? Dennis Meligonis: Probably not. Of course, I am representing the community and we really didn't discuss that with our community. We had several meetings with the builder. Basically representing the neighborhood here was just for the road connection. Barry Knight: Any other comments? Mr. Henley. ~ ~ Al Henley: Mr. Meligonis. On the question that Mr. Bernas just asked if for some reason that the road is not connected, once again, I think it is very important to open up neighborhoods with trail systems primarily pedestrian as well as bicycle traffic as well. Take into consideration with the proposal that Three Oaks has a great opportunity to Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 5 enjoy the open space that is going to be dedicated by the applicant. So the enjoyment there and not just for that neighborhood would be also be enjoyed by the surrounding neighborhoods just like Three Oaks. Does that sound attractive to you? Dennis Meligonis: Yes. AI Henley: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions or comments? Sir, I would like to note that it looks like there are some options on the table. Opening it up for vehicular traffic, which you all don't want, completely closing it for some sort of compromise. I've heard, so far and in some informal discussions that it looks like it would be ~ppropriate to open it up for pedestrian traffic and trail traffic. And also, with what else is being discussed is possibly getting a city deeded right-of-way, a deed access in there because you don't know what is going to happen in 15 or 20 years but don't put a road in there now. There has also been some discussion and the Fire Department has some break away barriers or some gates that they can go through with keys or electronics that wouldn't be used by anyone except for an extreme emergency of a fire or something. So, I would just like to throw that out for some other residents that are going to speak to be aware that we have some options. It's maybe all or nothing or maybe some sort of compromise. Thank you SIr. Joseph Strange: The next speaker is Renee Swinson. Barry Knight: We1come ma' am. Please state your name for the record. c:=.. Renee Swinson: Renee Swinson. I'm a seven year resident of Three Oaks and I live in the house adjacent to the proposed development on the end of Kindling Hollow Road. I do support Dennis' stand on opposing a road going through since I live right there but I would like to go further and say that I actually oppose the entire development. I am here to voice my opposition. As Dennis mentioned, currently there are numerous residential developments being proposed and built, and with this increase in density, I begin to question the need for this development. Over the past few years, the following have been considered for development within the Princess Anne section. Chelsea Place, Sherwood Lakes, Mayberry, Highcourt, Heritage Park, Victoria Park, Asheville Park, Nimmo's Quay and Seaboard Acres. On Sunday, June 11,2006, the Virginian Pilot published an article on the Pungo Village Public Hearings and reported that in the last three years over 800 homes have been approved for development in the Transition Area. One Tuesday, June 13,2006, the Pilot ran another article on three proposed developments, two of which are in the Princess Anne Corridor. The article focused on the opposition of these developments particularly that the residents worry that the growth is outstripping the city's ability to repair for the roads and other services. As a 35 year resident of Virginia Beach, I concur with this opposition based on my concern with the city's inability to provide the necessary services proportional to the proposed density increases. Just last Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Page 6 night, Sherwood Lakes development was approved by City Council. With all these developments and the hundred of houses they constitute, what is the need for another development? Kellam High School is already overcrowded. The new Three Oaks Elementary School is over booked for next year. With the increase in density these developments represent, these schools will have a difficult time accommodating the children. I have a daughter who will attend Three Oaks Elementary next year and I am disheartened to think that she may have to attend class in a portable.in a two-year old school. A lot of citizens moved to the Transition Area to get away from the overcrowding of northern Virginia Beach. In talks with some other Three Oaks residents that have asked me when is growth and progress a detriment? The Transition Area serves as a land use buffer between the urban northern portion of the city and the rural southern portion of the city. Land use in density within this area should not be a continuation of either form but a transition from one to the other. I want to thank you for your time and consideration and I am opposed to this request. Barry Knight: Thank you ma'am. Are there any questions? Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next speaker 8.J. Giancola. BJ. Giancola: My name is B.J. Giancola. Ed Weeden: Sir, identify yourself in the mic. c=:.. BJ. Giancola: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is 8.J. Giancola. My wife and I have lived at Three Oaks at Kindling Hollow Road for the past 19 years. In the past six months we conducted a survey of Three Oaks homeowners and I would like to submit the original petition with 13 copies containing the signatures of 189 homeowners who oppose having a connection entry/exit from Mathews Green to Three Oaks community. This represents a majority of the homeowners. The proposed connection will only cause significant increase in traffic through our neighborhood, additional congestion to the entrance of Three Oaks and increase safety issues for children who ride bikes, motor scooters and walk our streets with no sidewalks. During several meetings of the Three Oaks Homeowners Association, Mathews Green developers stated they would agree to with the majority of the Three Oaks homeowners to move the proposed connection from the plans if they had permission from the City Planning Commission and Council. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Karen Prochilo for her outstanding feedback with the Three Oaks homeowners and Mr. Kenyon and Mr. Swinson for providing assistance in conducting the survey and Ms. Dalton for making copies of the petition. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Before you make any decision I would just like to comment that as far as the emergency vehicles, I really don't see where it would gain any benefit by having any kind of access there. If they are going to have any problems it is going to be in either Three Oaks or it is going to be in Highgate Greens. I can't see where it is reasonable that if it is Mathews Green that they would be cutting through or going through Three Oaks in order to get to an a emergency in Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 7 Mathews Green. We have been here for 19 years and I've never heard of any kind of block up in front entrance of Three Oaks where an emergency vehicle couldn't get through. I don't think that is a problem. In the past few days I heard all this talk about the pedestrian right of way. The people that I have talked they don't want any connection there. We already have a problem whether people that already live there know, there are a lot of children and they're not only riding bikes but they are motorized scooters. That would just add between the developments of increased traffic. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions? BJ. Giancola: Should I submit these? Barry Knight: Give them to Mr. Livas. That will be fine. Joseph Strange: That concludes the opposition of speakers. Barry Knight: Mr. Maynard. Jeff Maynard: I don't have anything else to add other than what we said in our primary presentation. I guess with regard to the opposition general to the development. While our applicant can't solve all the city's traffic or other problems, we are dedicating a substantial area for future right-of-way improvements, which is a considerable value as well as taking property that is zoned agricultural and adding it to the tax base or to a higher rate. I'll standby for any questions. Again, we understand the community and Mr. Giancola petition. He had informed us earlier that the community doesn't want any connectivity whether that be a pedestrian or vehicular. So, our applicant, again is willing to do that which that the Planning Commission recommends. I would ask for your direction on that. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Maynard, about the right-turn in lane? Please address that. Jeff Maynard: Sure. There is not enough property for the benefit of everyone. The right turn in lane that Mr. Knight is referring to is on Princess Anne Road here. There is not enough land on the Mathews Green property to install a standard a right turn deceleration lane. However, our applicant is committed and our client is committed that during the site plan review process to install a right turn lane that allows for some vehicle stacking into the development. c:::::... Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Maynard_ We all know that it is very, very congested in that neck of the woods. Anything that we can help do to facilitate traffic flow in that area is going to be somewhat of a help. Are there any questions for Mr. Maynard? Mr. Bernas? Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 8 Jay Bernas: Is the applicant willing to work with staff prior to going to City Council on providing pedestrian access? As I understand it, and staff correct me if I am wrong that Three Oaks will have a pedestrian access to Sherwood Lakes that was recently approved. Correct me if I'm wrong if that is true or not? Karen Prochilo: Highgate Greens has a pedestrian access to LBH (Sherwood Lakes). Three Oaks does not have any connection currently with any developments. This is a proposed connection but it is a street tie connection. That is how it is being proposed. Jay Bernas: So is the applicant willing to work with staff, I guess on providing some sort of pedestrian access? Just like Mr. Henley had mentioned that Three Oaks would also have the-benefit of this tremendous open space that this development will be providing? Jeff Maynard: The applicant is certainly willing to do it. In fact, the applicant is willing to install a road. However, as we represented to the community we would support their direction on this initiative. We understand that 189 members, a majority as Mr. Giancola has pointed out opposes the application for that reason, then we of course wouldn't want that. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: Mr. Maynard, the road that you designed to connect to Three Oaks, the street stub that is shown on the plat, that was an existing street stub that you designed too, I assume that you didn't have to acquire? Jeff Maynard: That is correct. Ronald Ripley: That was envisioned as a conductor when Three Oaks was platted? I assume? Jeff Maynard: Right. We reviewed the plat for Three Oaks at the time and there was no cul-de-sac provided at that time. We looked in fact to see if there were additional notes or anything that pointed to future connection but all that was shown on the original plat was a street stub and not a cul-de-sac. So we assumed that was provided for future connection. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Livas. c== Henry Livas: Did your original plan call for that connectivity or did you do it as a result of the city forcing you too? Jeff Maynard: Our original plan showed the connectivity and I don't know if it was the Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.C. Page 9 city forcing us to do it because it was part of the requirement of the subdivision ordinance. I think Mr. Kellam and his engineering firm originally designed the application to comply with the subdivision ordinance. Barry Knight: Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: Yes. If you do not put a vehicular connection there and it is just a bike and pedestrian, that would sort of connect your community as well as the Greenway to the Three Oaks neighborhood, and it would give the Three Oaks neighborhood a much larger area for their recreational purposes or whatever. Do you have any idea of what the City's Parks and Recreation plans to do with the open space or really what they plan to put in there other than just trails? Jeff Maynard: We haven't gotten an indication from the City on that. The only thing that we did discuss was at the time we agreed to dedicate that space to the city. We wanted it to remain as an urban forest. So we included a restriction that we didn't want ball fields or that type of recreation. Eugene Crabtree: No. But did you put any restriction on there as far as other leisure activities other than just biking and walking? Jeff Maynard: Right. What I included in the restriction, I think was the term "passive recreational use", which would be walking and hiking trails. Eugene Crabtree: Alright. But that is going to be Parks and Recreation? Jeff Maynard: Yes. As I understand it as I confirmed with Karen. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Maynard? Thank you Mr. Maynard. Jeff Maynard: Thank you. Barry Knight: I'll open it up for discussion. Mr. Henley. ~ '-- Al Henley: I would like to compliment the applicant as well as the staff and the ability to work and discuss the many issues that have arisen as a result of this application. I believe the application is an application that has been well thought out, well planned. It would certainly compliment the neighborhood of Three Oaks and the surrounding area. I may want to mention that very seldom we have an opportunity that a number of applicants will actually benefit the city, the neighborhood. The applicants have dedicated additional property that is directly across from the historical structure mainly called Nimmo Church. And I had a letter in possession that was signed by the church applauding that, which I thought was really gracious of the proposed development. Along with that the dedication, the deed, the proposed Princess Anne Road relocation is also very beneficial to the traffic Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 10 situation that everyone is aware of. This will certainly benefit alleviating a lot of the traffic concerns in that particular cross intersection. The open space will also benefit the city, that particular neighborhood of Mathews Green, as well as Three Oaks, and the other surrounding neighborhoods to enjoy the open space and large canopy trees that are present in that particular area along with the trails that are proposed for that area. Understand that the street connection is a standard that the City of Virginia Beach has adopted years ago, and obviously was adopted for a purpose because at one particular time there were locked in neighborhoods and nobody could gain access. There was one way in and one way out. Unfortunately, life and loss of life and threatening of structures because of fire and staff had to get along with fire and rescue and they established this ordinance. We had a real neat year to be exercised and that is to open up neighborhoods to avoid unfortunate critical situations to avoid death, emergency situ~tions, heart attacks, fire and rescue. As the gentlemen pointed out they never had that situation arise in Three Oaks. I think that is very fortunate and we all hope that we would never have that particular situation to occur. But it only takes one situation. One particular critical incident and people begin to think if that only other access would have been open and we would have had a clearer shot because minutes count when life is in limbo. Again, minutes count when a fire engine cannot get there appropriately in time. That is something that is real life situation. I can clearly understand the resident at the end of that particular street. I have had my solitude. I can clearly understand and appreciate where those individuals are coming from. However, when you look at the future of the city, and the future of well planned neighborhoods, I think it is the only way to go. Bottom line, City Council will be the one that will be listening to this to make a decision whether that street connection will, in fact be open to traffic or it will be closed or if it is an option possibly pedestrian and bikeway systems. I, for one, believe that bikeway and not encouraged to vehicular traffic. I am not in support of that even though it is against city staff, and I hate to go against city staff but I realize that on the books they had to recommend that for the public well being. But I can clearly sympathize with that neighborhood. If I lived there I would probably not want that myself but I would be delighted to have a cross connection or pedestrian as well as bikeways. The elevation that is proposed in this is an excellent opportunity for an upgraded upscale neighborhood that everyone can certainly be proud of. It is a close knit neighborhood with trails that they could enjoy, bikeways and the tremendous open space behind canopy trees that is present in that particular area. I can go on but I'm not going to delay any longer. I will say I will be supporting this for those reasons that I mentioned today. Thank you. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Are there any other comments? c=:::. Eugene Crabtree: Just one quick one. I want to ditto AI's comments and say that as far as the pedestrian and bike connectivity, the Bike and Trails Committee that has been formed in the last year here in the city has worked very diligently and has made recommendations, and we've changed the Comprehensive Plan to try to connect the entire city with pedestrian and bike access so that we could go from one point in the city to the next. All over. No matter where it is, all the old neighborhoods, all the new Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L.c. Page 11 neighborhoods and all. So, I too support the connectivity of the bike and trails. If for no other reason than for the continuity of us having our communities connected so that we can go and flow from one to the other throughout the city, which we hope some day to run from over the Amphibious Base Little Creek all the way down to the city line going towards Knotts Island. We hope someday to have connectivity. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Are there any other comments? Discussion? The Chair will entertain a motion. Al Henley: I'll make a motion to approve. Ronald Ripley: Second. Barry Knight: A motion to approve by Al Henley and a second by Ron Ripley. Mr. Henley, tell us again that you are approving it as stated or any changes between here and Council? Al Henley: I'm approving it as stated with the exception of not tying in the Three Oaks street for vehicular traffic. However, I wanted it to be a dedicated right-of-way joining both neighborhoods with a pedestrian access and with also a bikeway. Those bikeways and pedestrian will be paved for concrete. Barry Knight: Thank you. Is that your second Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: That is not my second. I withdraw my second. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Janice Anderson: I'll second it. Barry Knight: Ms. Anderson. Is there any discussion? There is a motion on the floor with the adjustment made. We have a first by Al Henley and a second by Jan Anderson. I'll call for the question. Karen Prochilo: May we ask that the motion be with a surface approved by Parks and Recreation, if that is possible? Al Henley: Yes. I concur. Barry Knight: Ms. Anderson? c::::=.. Janice Anderson: That is fine. Barry Knight: Thank you. Call for the question. Item #16 & 17 Mathews Green Associates, L.L. C. Page 12 ANDERSON BERNAS CRABTREE HENLEY KA TSIAS KNIGHT LIV AS RIPLEY STRANGE WALLER WOOD AYE 9 NAY 2 ABSO ABSENT 0 AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE NAY NAY AYE AYE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-2, the Board has approved the application of Mathews Green Associates as stated and as approved by Parks and Recreation. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Weeden. ~ '-- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6326 DATE: July 7, 2006 FROM: Leslie L. Lilley B. Kay WilS~ DEPT: City Attorney TO: DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application: Matthews Green Associates, LLC The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 18, 2006. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May 19, 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 Iks Enclosure cc~ Kathleen Hassen /' Document Prepared By: Troutman Sanders LLP 222 Central Park A venue Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of this 19th day of May, 2006 by and between MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES. LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (the "Grantor"), the current owner of that certain property located along Princess Anne Road, in Virginia Beach, Virginia, which property is more particularly describ~d in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property") and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). WIT N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the classification of the property from AG-2 to Conditional R-20 (PDH-2); and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes, including mixed use purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict, and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the change and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned Conditional R-20 (PDH-2) are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered in writing in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as part of the proposed conditional amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for in the existing R-20 (PDH-2) districts by the existing City's Zoning Ordinance (CZO), the following reasonable conditions related to the GPIN NO.: 2404-94-9948..0000 physical development, operation and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the new Zoning Map relative to the Property, all of which have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning; and WHEREAS, said conditions having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, such conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Property covered by such conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are amended or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and executed by the record owner of the subject Property at the time of recordation of such instrument; provided, further, that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, it's successors, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion of quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration. of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that these proffers (collectively, the "Proffers") shall constitute covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, it's heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title, namely: 1. When developed, the Property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the conceptual plan titled "Rezoning Exhibit of Mathews Green", dated March 21, 2006, and 2 prepared by Kellam Gerwitz, a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with City Planning Department (the "Conceptual Plan"). 2. When developed, all residential lots numbered 1 through 45, inclusive, on the Conceptual Plan shall meet or exceed the following setbacks and lot dimensions: a. Front Yard Setback: Twenty Feet (20') b. Front Yard Setback for Unenclosed, Attached One-Story Porch: Ten Feet (10') c. Side Yard Setback: Ten Feet (10') d. Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Public Street: Twenty Feet (20') e. Rear Yard: Twenty Feet (20') f. Rear Yard for Accessory Structure: Five Feet (5') g. Minimum Lot Area: 11,700 square feet 3. When developed, all residential lots numbered 46 through 49 on the Conceptual Plan shall contain a rear yard landscape buffer at fifty feet (50') in width along the re-aligned portion of Princess Anne Road, cross-hatched and shown on the Conceptual Plan. 4. On or before the date Grantor records a subdivision plat creating the residential lots shown on the Conceptual Plan, Grantor shall dedicate to Grantee the portion of the Property along Mathews Green hatched and shown on the Conceptual Plan as "RIW to Be Dedicated to City" Grantor shall not be entitled to any compensation for the value of the Property dedicated to Grantee. 5. On or before the date Grantor records a subdivision plat creating the residential lots shown on the Conceptual Plan, Grantor shall dedicate to Grantee a portion of the Property for the future re-alignment of Princess Anne Road. The portion of the Property to be dedicated shall be located within the area of the Property hatched and shown on the Conceptual Plan as "New Alignment Princess Anne Road". Grantor shall not be entitled to any compensation for the value of the Property dedicated to Grantee. 3 6. On or before the date Grantor records a subdivision plat creating the residential lots shown on the Conceptual Plan, Grantor shall record a Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions"), which shall be administered and enforced by a homeowners association in which all landowners within Grantor's development shall be members, The Deed Restrictions shall be prepared in substantially the same form as the exhibit titled "Proposed Deed Restrictions" exhibited to the City Council and on file with the City Attorney's Office. 7. The Deed Restrictions shall require the establishment of an architectural review committee which shall administer and enforce the "Architectural Design' Guidelines for Mathews Green Subdivision" dated August 28, 2005, a copy of which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the City Planning Department. The Architectural Design Guidelines shall apply only to the residential lots numbered 1 through 45, inclusive, on the Conceptual Plan and shall not apply to lots 46 through 49, inclusive. 8. The areas shown on the Conceptual Plan as "Homeowners Assoc. Open Space" (the "Open Space Area") shall be subject to restrictive covenants recorded which prohibit the use of such area for any purpose but recreation and open space use. The restrictive covenants shall run with the land and be in full force and effect for a period of at least fifty (50) years. The covenants shall become part of the deed to each lot or parcel within Grantor's development. The covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney, or his designee, and recorded before the first building permit in Grantor's development is issued. 9. Grantor shall provide for maintenance of the Open Space area, either by the homeowners association, in which case all property owner's within Grantor's development shall be responsible for the costs and expenses of such maintenance, or by conveying an interest in the Open Space Areas to a public or private entity for such purposes. 10. Grantor shall dedicate the area shown on the Conceptual Plan as "Open Space/Preservation Area" (the "Preservation Area") to the City of Virginia Beach, no later than thirty (30) days after the issuance of the first building permit within Grantor's development. The Preservation Area shall be subject to restrictive covenants recorded which prohibit the use of such area for any purposes other than open space use or passive recreational uses, such as hiking trails, walking paths, or other similar uses which do not detract from the forestral nature of the 4 Preservation Area. The restrictive covenants shall run with the land and be in full force and effect for a period of at least fifty (50) years. The covenants shall become part of the deed dedicating the Preservation Area to the City of Virginia Beach. The covenants shall be approved by the City Attorney, or his designee. 11. Grantor shall file and obtain approval of a rezoning petition to rezone the Open Space Area to P-l Preservation District, as defined in the CZO, prior to the approval of any subdivision plat within Grantor's development or the issuance of a building permit. 12. Further conditions lawfully imposed by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during detailed site plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer to the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the conditional zoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. 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, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bringing of legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of. any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, the CZO or this Agreement, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shall show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and indexed in the name of the Grantor and Grantee. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantor executes this Agreement as of the date first written above. GRANTOR: MATHEWS GREEN ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company By: Q ~L_J\. Name: Title: -- COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: T~foregoing inst1j;1ment was acknowledged before me thisZ2.')1~ay of ~ ~ ' 2006, by Kfc...AD'l1 C. p..lAtI2.~ his capacity as member of Mathews Green AssocIates, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company. He is personally known to me or has produced as identification. My Commission Expires: IV 6) cC YVit -~ Notary Public DUSCOMMISSIONEDPAMELAJ.HlI'B VB296548v3 6 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as S.R. Mathews 50.0 ac. as shown on that certain plat entitled, "PROPERTY OF S'R. MATHEWS LOCATED NEAR NIMMO CHURCH - PRINCESS ANNE CO., VA", which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 29, at page 6. LESS, SA VB AND EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach by Deed dated July 18, 1983 and recorded in Deed Book 2273, at Page 359. IT BEING the same property conveyed to Mathews Green Associates, LLC by Deed from Spencer Relmond Mathews, Jr., Louis Scott Mathews and Claudius Floyd Mathews, IT, dated July 12, 2005 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia as Instrument Number 200507280117500. 7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: C and C Development Company, Inc. - Subdivision Variance, 200 60th Street (DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHAVEN) MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for C and C Development Company, Inc. Property is located at 200 60th Street (GPINs 2419717532). DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHAVEN . Considerations: The applicant requests a subdivision variance that will allow the division of a 19,344.5 square foot parcel into three lots. Proposed Lot A will be 5,001.5 square feet and 50.49-feet in width; Proposed Lot B will be 4,341.6 square feet and 46.21 feet in width; and Proposed Lot C will be 10,001.4 square feet and 90-feet in width. The applicant proposes the construction of single-family dwellings on Proposed Lots A and B; the existing dwelling will remain on Proposed Lot C. Proposed Lot B lacks the required 50 foot lot width required for the R-5R Residential District; thus, the granting of a subdivision variance is required before this subdivision can be approved and recorded. The ~equest is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area, and compatible with the surrounding uses. The request is not a detriment to the neighborhood, as the resulting lot sizes are consistent with those in the surrounding area. The applicant has met with the civic league for this neighborhood, and has received an endorsement for the project provided the following occurs: . The development of the proposed lots is limited to single-family dwellings; . Elevation drawings of the proposed buildings are submitted; and . The buildings are laid out on the site without the need for any variances form the Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicant has agreed to those conditions. The proposed development of the lots with single-family dwellings is more acceptable to the surrounding neighborhood than the by-right development of duplexes, which could be detrimental to this neighborhood due to its existing density. C & C Development Co., Inc. Page 2 of 2 There was opposition to the request. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The sites shall be subdivided substantially in accordance with the submitted preliminary subdivision plan entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL B-1, RESUBDIVISION OF PARCELS A & B, BLOCK 4, NEW VIRGINIA BEACH, SECTION 2 & LOT 1, BLOCK 4, NEW VIRGINA BEACH, SECTION 2", prepared by Gallup Surveyors and Engineers, LTD., and dated February 10, 2006. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. 2. The proposed parcels are limited to the construction of single-family dwellings only. This limitation shall be recorded as a deed restriction. 3. The design and exterior of the proposed dwellings shall substantially conform to the submitted building elevation. The applicant shall use high quality building materials such as hardi-plank siding, brick, and architectural grade roofing shingles. Exterior trim shall be wrapped with vinyl. The use of vinyl siding on the body of the building is strongly discouraged. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: ~ k · ot31J(n... Cd~ ~ REQUEST: C&C DEVELOPMENT, CO., INC. Agenda Item 4 June 14, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 200 60th Street GPIN: 24197173800000 24197173570000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 5-LYNNHAVEN SITE SIZE: 19,344.5 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST Existing Lot: The existing lots total 19,344.5 square feet. The lots measure 90 feet on 60th Street and 206.7 feet along Atlantic Avenue. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide 19,344.5 square feet into three lots (see proposed subdivision plat on next page). Proposed Lot A will be 5,001.5 square feet and 50.49-feet in width; Proposed Lot B will be 4,341.6 square feet and 46.21 feet in width; and Proposed Lot C will be 10,001.4 square feet and 90-feet in width. The applicant proposes the construction of single-family dwellings on Proposed Lots A and B; the existing dwelling will remain on Proposed Lot C. Proposed Lot B lacks the lot width required for the R-5R Residential District; thus. the granting of a subdivision variance is required before this subdivision can be approved and recorded. 1te.m Reauired J.Jll...B Lot Width in feet 50 46.21 * Lot Area in square feet 5,000 4,341.6* *Variance required C & C DEVELOPME:NT,CO.,INC. Agenda Item 4 Pa.ge 1 ~"$l ~i'" .~I ......1...... 'I l I ---l I tK:1II OR ~y 2GJ-1C5 ." 11llttI. ...~ 0.& ~ P.ICOlI __ tOT 7-1. lUl.:*" ,.. 1.)$1 Gl'II4t:411-,,_ I · ~. ..~ II:M' <lit I'(IIlIlIlII.Y _... nar A~1Iif ILl. JI1P. W SElNO LOT 2 QOIIo~1"'71_50 ~~ 'l("-Zc.~""" ~ ~~~ III i-]; (1' J r Sl___, I L., '0 I I ll'1.ll9',.$ $0.. F'f _..J L. _ ..r -- ~.. ~ o !f ; ~m ....... tlc.W ,. =~ a ::8 & A-I ..3OllOOIJUIQ " !Il:I01"s so. PT. l!iO;_ Ai'LNmC AvENUE (120. R/W) ..... r ,.,.. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A single-family dwelling exists on Lot 1, fronting 60th Street. Proposed lots A and B are vacant. . 60th Street Across 60th Street is a single-family dwelling I R-5R Resort Residential A single-family dwelling I R-5R Resort Residential Atlantic Avenue Across Atlantic Avenue are single-family and duplex dwellings I R-5R Resort Residential Duplex dwellings I R-5R Resort Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: . . South: East: . . West: . NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: There are no natural resources or cultural features associated with the sites. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. C & C DEVELOPMENT, CO., INC. Agenda Item 4 Page 2 IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Atlantic Avenue in front of this request is a minor urban arterial. There are currently no Capital Improvement Projects scheduled for this section of Atlantic Avenue. WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is a 12-inch and a 16-inch water main in Atlantic Avenue in front of the site. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. There is a 10-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main in Atlantic Avenue in front of this site. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the primacy of preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods in the Primary Residential Area. The division of this lot into three lots is consistent with the recommendations of the Plan for this area only if assurances are provided that the lots will be developed such that the development strives to meet these goals for the Primary Residential Area. Staff has recommended conditions to be added to this variance, if granted, that work toward meeting the goals. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self- inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. e & e DEVELOPMENT, CO., INC. Agenda Itet'n 4 Page 3 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with conditions. The request is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area, and compatible with the surrounding uses, particularly with the conditions recommended below. The request is not a detriment to the neighborhood, as the resulting lot sizes are consistent with those in the surrounding area. The applicant has met with the civic league planning and design review committee for this neighborhood, and has received an endorsement for the project provided the following occurs: · The development of the proposed lots is limited to single-family dwellings; · Elevation drawings of the proposed buildings are submitted; and · The buildings are laid out on the site without the need for any varia~ces form the Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicant has agreed to those conditions. The proposed development of the lots with single-family dwellings is more acceptable to the surrounding neighborhood than the by-right development of duplexes, which could be detrimental to this neighborhood due to its existing density. The recommended conditions are provided below. CONDITIONS 1. The sites shall be subdivided substantially in accordance with the submitted preliminary subdivision plan entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL B-1, RESUBDIVISION OF PARCELS A & B, BLOCK 4, NEW VIRGINIA BEACH, SECTION 2 & LOT 1, BLOCK 4, NEW VIRGINA BEACH, SECTION 2", prepared by Gallup Surveyors and Engineers, LTD., and dated February 10, 2006. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. 2. The proposed parcels are limited to the construction of single-family dwellings only. This limitation shall be recorded as a deed restriction. 3. The design and exterior of the proposed dwellings shall substantially conform to the submitted building elevation. The applicant shall use high quality building materials such as hard i-plank siding, brick, and architectural grade roofing shingles. Exterior trim shall be wrapped with vinyl. The use of vinyl siding on the body of the building is strongly discouraged. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. 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. C & C DEVELOPMENT, CO., liNC. Agenda Ite!'Jl 4 Page4 ,"'I "", .... /"", ,"":! C & C DEVELOPMENT.CO..']:NC. AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION III il it II i ; ; I ~ s . I ,~ &1111 ~\:il"'" a Ii, ~..J .. ' 91': Ii - L 511 iiil 11.;1iI1 ~ "', ..: .5 5 ...~ ~, ~ tt:~t~ii~ Q.~ :r: it: ~ clJJH W ~ Z Z w a:; 60th STREET (100' RjV() llJI. i '0 eo. r-' r-J ~ ~ I I I I L, r..., I ,1-_ _~ C'l 51 0": , ~ l ~ 0:: 'b eo.I .::;. it lJJ", _ :::I., i~ ""' Nl'fOt $ to: rail "I i __ Of'to Jr. M>lCIMllC S' ~ _VlLIt't~' ~ lit w.ca_ ....'iI T It ~ ~ .""' '$ 111 (7 '-ctlJ Ii i <"l i ~'S~ l- lIlfl1NTI'IIJCSE)Ili)fT, l' 1IIJ\.1'IflP.. 1\ i II i t ;.\ I ~ ....: >- ~ ~ J G! li <( iI. <( Z <5 <i: ~ '$ .. ~ lie PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ';. <?",i;'~~;i"'~'''''0:" '. C & C DEVELOP~T,GO'r!:~C. 'Agenda lt~,1p 4 ,.,;' ,~~:6 '::fh".+V;4i': ~ ~ . '. 'l t ~,,"\,' . ~ .. t 'jJ i !J '~;;.': ~ 1 ""f' "!:t i T~ 1 ,. f' . i 1 :; PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION ~. ... ,r'; ;:'L. ';.;>;;:~:';; . >(~ \.;::!':'.,"~'" C & C DEVELOP~T;CO:,;uf'Jc. . Agendalt~~ 4 ";~~~r~t 1. 3/14/00 Subdivision Variance 2. 11/9/99 Alterations to a Nonconforming Use (additions to a single- family dwelling) 11/9/99 Alterations to a Nonconforming Use (additions to a single- family dwelling) . 8/12/00 Alterations to a Nonconforming Use (additions' to a single- family dwelling) 12/12/00 Alterations to a Nonconforming Use (additions to a single- famil dwellin A roved Approved Denied Approved Approved ZONING HISTORY C & C DEVELOPMeNT; CO;,j;~C.'" . Agendal'),'" 4 II ~~o c'~ tllts~, tll tlt ~.iJJJttil. Jl i.....o.1!! ~ .~..!.~ t ~ fii.. . t.. .~ 1_' i. · :!!.. !~J ci.~ ,i!t:~~ J I j. ..~. ^i. !! i! ~ .Ii. i 1.1'1S 11ti .e.1 j~"!~li!i!'l~ q}~I.1 ~ e- ft~;SiJ 1~I~B nn ! -I~i ..iltii.I....1 !,I...,").. . ~lol .. I . ill ,,1111 a!.i., i I i~ f~J)j' ."o.al~.~.....I. , ~~! ~~!~III' I~) .J- ~~ 1!4~ !~~j~'I:I!1 .,1.. .,....-1. III e).&~ ltit. .)1 ~ ~a$j Ilfol}Jl ;eJ.~'" .Jjll ttJI!1 Ii :I~ "~.'.'. .~lii!J ~ &' ~ ..i..1i. 1.1....1. if!.. '.~...~.. Iili!.). ....i. -. !h~ hl~ III Jtl~ ~t1111~51~ !tlllli ~lli H tll ~lltJlli III~ 12:: i.1 i~.l< 4> .I't g-Zl 2"."" i if Ii i~li .;;I.r~ I.. i'i I. s;li'8,s ~~2~ gS a 'ii,i1i& E"!!"," J:l~ [~~ " C"jl;;"!.<J -;cEi.$~ i.ii.... ~ ~ t~! i f i ~ . .I - ~ u C .I: :: ~ c !i i l: ! ] ''a ~ . .....SI' !..... i I I i a l i$ I i l ] "i!1 ~I ~ i; ~ ] e llJ llIlt '; J ! ~ ~!!l o~ E. .~ i q}""""..li\ J,! ~ :n~.{l~ ~." ~:I Ilt~!! JIl_ $'i..~_... i"" Ilf~b'; Ii Ill!; Ii f~;l~ I: till, II Q. .,*.1 ; m 11< ~j ~I III lit 'j f . .., ~ I s 1,1.1 1!ll!t7S 'jlS ~. 'h 1 . ~ 111J I!~ ~O~ Ix DISCLOSURE STATEMENT '"," C & C DEVELOPMENT, CO.,' '~.Agendal *.;.:;.... . B Item #4 C and C Development Company, Inc. Subdivision Ordinance 200 60th Street District 5 Lynnhaven June 20, 2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: Now we will enter the public hearing session of our regular agenda. Mr. Strange is our secretary. Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: I thank you Barry. The first item is Item #4, C and C Development Company, Inc., appeal to decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for C and C Development Company, Inc. The property is located at 200 60th Street, District 5, Lynnhaven, with three conditions. Barry Knight: We1come Eddie. Eddie Bourdon: Chairman Knight and members of the Commission, for the record my name is Eddie Bourdon, and I represent C and C Development Company, Inc. Mr. Ailstock, who is the owner of the larger of two pieces of property that are part of this application is also here. This application, as I understand, was on the consent agenda. I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time. You are all familiar with it. The purpose is to avoid the duplexes constructed along this street frontage, this very significant lot here, that will be subdivided using the adjacent property as well. In the end, we will be maintaining the existing single-family home on the large lot on the comer and two other single-family homes. We have an elevation of the new homes that has been provided. This has been supported by the civic league, and you have a letter from them. There are approximately 20 letters of support, and I just provided another one to Ms. Christie. The conditions that have been recommended are all acceptable. I would like to ask that Condition #2 be modified to not change any of the wording that is currently there but to add to it at the end of the sentence "this limitation shall also be memorialized by recordation of a private deed restriction." The applicant will record a private deed restriction that the parcels may be developed only as single-family residential dwellings. Only those single-family dwellings can be built on any of the property, which is the subject of this subdivision. With that, I assume there must be some one signed up in opposition. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Thank you. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition we have Chris Thoman. Item #4 C and C Development Company, Inc. Page 2 Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Please state your name for the record sir. Chris Thomas: Christopher Thoman. Happy Flag Day everyone! Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I am adjacent to the property at 200. My address is 206 60th Street. I have four items that I would like to discuss today. The first being property notification for the zoning proposal. The second would be, I guess communication after my non-consent faxed letter. The third would be after the communications on my behalf, and the fourth would be the benefits. First, I heard this information on May 4, 2006 from my neighbor who is at 204 60th Street. I got a copy of the letter from him, which was never submitted to me by either C and C or Mr. Ailstock. I saw a copy of the letter dated April 2, 2006 that the North Beach Civic League did not oppose it. All the information I gathered was on my own behalf. No one ever came to me. Yet, I'm the most affected property if you take a look at 206. I'm the second lot behind 204 directly adjacent. Barry Knight: Mr. Thomas, will you pick up that laser at the top comer. Rip it up and point to where your lot is? Chris Thoman: It is right there. Barry Knight: Thank you. Chris Thoman: Was that okay? So I faxed a "do not" propose letter, after 2Y2 weeks in Hawaii, on May 23rd, as soon as I had an opportunity. On May 25th, Ms Christie was nice enough to send me a letter telling me the date of the court. On May 30t\ I got a voice mail message from Mr. Ailstock. I talked to him that day, the property owner at 200, and he said basically what would happen is there would be three single-family homes or the biggest condo on the north end. I asked if I could basically meet with him, because I didn't really understand what was asked for in the zoning proposal. He said sure. We would meet that weekend. I was home the entire weekend. He never called or showed up. On June ih, I left him a message, because he didn't show up, and said "I guess I'll just see you next week at the hearing." I planned on bringing an attorney at that time, because I felt it was like being hidden from me. All that was going down. I was really scared of what was happening. I didn't even understand it. On June 7th, I got a call from his friend who is a neighbor. It was explained to me, first of all, on May 30th, and I'll back up, that Mr. Ailstock did know that 204 did not own my property, as well. Since 1998, that property has not been owned by 204. I did the history of due diligence search. I've owned it since 2001. His sister lives in 200. So, I would think she would have known that, but I'm not sure. Okay. On June 7th, I talked to his neighbor who walked the property line and showed actually what was going on. It is exactly 62 feet, and that 62 feet will basically take up two-thirds of my residence, where I will be staying, at the back of this property, Lot B, the new proposed structure. On June 13th, 2006, Mr. Ailstock asked me if I had any additional questions. I said yes the benefits basically, which we will get to in my fourth item. For my third item are my findings. After my notification, I talked to an attorney and a realtor. The attorney said, get an appraisal and make that Item #4 C and C Development Company, Inc. Page 3 person your expert witness. Get a pre-appraisal and a post appraisal. How it will affect you. I contacted my realtor for an appraisers name. She said this guy owes me a favor. I called him. He said $400.00 for the pre-appraisal, but the post-appraisal will be tough because we don't know how it will affect. It is your own individual situation. I said "how much"? He said $10,000.00. I said you are not really interested in doing this are you? He said, I'm kind of worried that I might get counter-sued if I throw a number out there. So that was my finding there. My realtor said, sell it. My attorney said I need an expert witness, and he would come down here for $1,000.00. That is why he is not down here today. The benefit. And it is the last item today. Per Mr. Ailstock, the property value increase for four single-family dwellings rather than the three that is currently zoned for, and the biggest condo on the North End, the monster McMansion or whatever they're called. Like I talked about structure. I believe it is going to be, is going to cover about three-fourths of my view, which would be my deck, my barbeque area, my 2Y2 year- old girl's room is all windows. Right there where the structure would be. I don't see the benefits to my property value, or my quality of living, or my view of my house. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Thoman. Are there any questions? Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: You mentioned 12 feet? 60 feet? What were you referring too? I was kind of following you but when you, got there, I didn't know what you meant. Chris Thoman: I'm sorry. I wasn't following it through the whole process either. I was informed by another person, and not by either the applicant or the owner that I thought it was only 12 feet that they were trying to purchase to make the lot closest to 59th Street bigger. Okay. It was actually going to affect the lot at 200. That is how I understood it to start. Then on the 8th, when I actually walked it off, I saw it was now 62 feet. So, when I thought it was 12 feet, I said no big deal. Twelve feet is twelve feet. It didn't really affect the view of the horizon or down toward Atlantic where I could look off my deck and still see things other than a building. I was just thinking about forgetting about it, but when I walked the property with the neighbor on the 8th, that is when I would realize that it would take over a bigger portion. Ronald Ripley: What do you mean by the 62 feet? Chris Thoman: This current property right here, this "B" Lot, is all the way. The house ends right here by a condo. I thought that this 12 feet right here was all that was for sale. Okay. Now, I found out that it went all the way out to here. Construction, I guess, is going to start, I guess, Friday morning, or soon as they can demolish it. I don't know how that works. It is really the first time. Ronald Ripley: We're the Planning Commission. We hear and try to sort through these things, and then we will make a recommendation to the City Council, and they will make the final decision. So this is just to try and get it figured out. Send up a recommendation. Chris Thoman: Thanks for the opportunity to do that today. Item #4 C and C Development Company, Inc. Page 4 Ronald Ripley: Yes. May I continue Barry? You live directly behind the larger lot to the north? Chris Thoman: To the west. Right here. Ronald Ripley: West of that? Chris Thoman: Right there. Ronald Ripley: Your concern is more that the building is going to block your view? Is that a big part of your concern? Chris Thoman: Currently, my property structural line lines up with where the condo could go, if you wanted to put a condo there. Okay. I would still have a view of the horizon. I could still barbeque and sit on my deck, and not be staring right into someone's window. If there were going to be windows there. I have no idea. If it comes out as proposed, I will be viewing the side of Lot "B", and straight along that structure, you get about two-thirds down to where my dining room is, that we don't spend too much time in. We spend more time on the deck and outside, a beach community type of thing. Ronald Ripley: Let me ask you this. I understand that you're concerned about losing your view. The property belongs to somebody else. Chris Thoman: I totally understand that. Ronald Ripley: They have rights, and they are trying to do some things that I think the neighborhood wants to happen and do less duplexes and more single-family. When you do these three single-families, it seems like you will have the opportunity to see between them better than being blocked out by a big huge structure. That is what comes to my mind. Does that seem like that could be a benefit to you? Chris Thoman: Well, for the community I can see that. Anybody, besides the person I am, who has to stare directly in the back of the building. The view I will have will be down the side of the two buildings, and I would have to, and there is no way I could view it from the property line. I would have to stay on the property line on top of my fence to actually get a view of the horizon. So, I will be staring at the side of a building. I understand it is much nicer. I don't like those big duplexes either. Please don't think I'm doing that. I don't want to take away anyone's rights, but with the 12 percent or 13 percent variance on the size of the lot, I know this will immediately affect me, and the way it kind of went down with nobody telling me except for a neighborhood friend. All these 20 consent forms come in. I'm the main person affected. I feel like someone is trying to do an "end-around" on me. I've had about a week to really understand what is going on and get down here. Item #4 C and C Development Company, Inc. Page 5 Barry Knight: Mr. Henley. Al Henley: Yes sir. You currently live... is it a condo you live in? Chris Thoman: We're attached. Yes. It is zoned a condo. We are attached to 204 by a breezeway where I park my lawnmower. Al Henley: So they are two private. Chris Thoman: Yes sir. Al Henley: Do you access your property through 60th Street? Chris Thoman: Yes. I do. Al Henley: Is there any other way? Chris Thoman: No sir. About a 50 yard driveway. I'm only allowed to park one car there according to condo documents. I park one on the street and one in the back. Al Henley: This driveway, is it immediately to the west? Chris Thoman: Yes it is sir. Al Henley: Do you know approximately how far your structure and your residence is from the property line? Chris Thoman: I'm going to say about 8 or 10 feet. AI Henley: What is the current zoning? What I am wondering is did this condo association come before the City and ask the BZA for a variance? Did they not? Faith Christie: Did his? Al Henley: Yes. Faith Christie: Don't know. Al Henley: I was just wondering what the zoning is for that area on the setback on that pocket. Faith Christie: Ten foot for a duplex and eight for a single-family. '-- Al Henley: So, the separation would also be ten foot? Item #4 C and C Development Company, Inc. Page 6 Faith Christie: The separation would be the rear zone. It would be 20 feet off of that. Al Henley: So were talking 30-foot separation then? Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry that you're so upset, and I can certainly see that you are want to see this worked out for you. I don't think anyone was trying to do any end-run with you, and certainly not Mr. Bourdon, and certainly not our Planning staff. They are very professional, and I am sure that Ms. Christie will be more than happy to talk to you about it before it goes to Council. We certainly want to work with all the citizens. Chris Thoman: Right. Dorothy Wood: I think that probably it would be better with single-family houses than a large condo. We certainly are sorry that you are upset. Chris Thoman: Thanks for your concern. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Thoman? Thank you sir. Chris Thoman: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the gentleman, if he feels that he was not communicated with by the owner of the property, Mr. Ailstcok. I know I received and Ms. Christie received notification from him. I received through her his concern a couple of weeks ago. I also noted from what he indicated that he knew about this from a neighbor as of May 4th. I think we're at the 13th of June. But we're very happy to dialogue with him to the extent that Mr. Ailstock failed to do so. I apologize for that, and I'm very definitely happy to speak with him. The only thing that I would simply point out concerning the gentleman's lot is a situation where we do have a non-conforming situation where there are two single-family dwellings that have been attached by a breezeway to create a duplex. It is a situation that does exist to some degree in the North End. So, the current setback over here would be a ten-foot side setback, which this would be the front to that particular property, with a 20-foot rear yard setback from here. This non-conforming situation doesn't meet any of that requirement. I am certain. Also, today's lot coverage restrictions would exceed as well. Mr. Ailstock wants to avoid, and what we're trying to avoid here with the civic league, is the proliferation of these large "big box" duplexes that take up all of the site. That is why you have the support from the people in the community and with the civic league. We also have the support from the gentleman who owns this unit here as well, the front unit of that lot, and the other folks on 60th Street. So, to the extent that the concern is someone is going to block his view, Item #4 C and C Development Company, Inc. Page 7 which I think has already been provided, there is no right to a view over this property anyway. What the idea of trying to do here is to create adequate single-family lots that will not require any setback variances, which is one of the conditions that was attached to this recommendation, so as to keep the property separation and to keep the streetscape and the appearance consistent with the elevation that you also have, again, and this is the house that is there now. It is a modest house by North End standards. If, in some point in the future, it were to be taken down, then it could only be replaced with single-family residential use. That is what the idea here is. To make sure that we only have single- family residential use on the property. Barry Knight: Are there any questions ofMr. Bourdon? Thank you. I'll open it up for discussion. Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: Yes. I can understand why Mr. Thoman is upset, because there is going to be something built there. He's had the benefit of the view before. But I believe if you look at the application, this property could be developed, and I think you would not be happy with a denser development. This application has tried to control that denser development. He considered doing a couple of duplexes on two lots and actually crippling your population on that comer. They limited it to just three instead of up to four or six. So, I think the restrictions they have put on the conditions, and now it is going to go with the deed, and it is going to be a deed restriction. I would be supportive of it. Especially since the civic league has been very active in trying to go forward and reduce the duplex issue here, or the "big box." And they are supporting it also. Barry Knight: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Thoman. We appreciate you coming down here today. We really do. The concerns, and we heard the concerns. As Ms. Wood has said there is going to be approximately 30 days or maybe more before this goes to City Council, which is the final determination. And, Mr. Bourdon, the representative for the applicant, and the applicant, I'm sure will be willing to work with you. And if you would like to give your name and phone number to Mr. Bourdon, I'm sure he would contact you. Is there any other discussion? Does anyone want to entertain a motion? Eugene Crabtree: I move that we approve the application as presented, with the note that the one condition that Mr. Bourdon wanted the wording changed on it. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor by Gene Crabtree and a second by Dot Wood with the addition to the language in Condition #2. Is there any other discussion? Call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE Item #4 C and C Development Company, Inc. Page 8 CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the application of C and C Development Company, Inc. as amended to condition #2. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Weeden. NORTH VIRGINIA BEACH CIVIC LEAGUE ZONING REVIEW COMMlTIEE MEMO Members of City Council Members of the Planning Commission City of Virginia Beach Sunday, April 02, 2006 Re: Application by C & C Development for a Change to a Subdivision Variance for Parcel B-1. Re-subdivision of parcels A & B, Block 4, New Virginia Beach, Section 2 (unrecorded) and Lot 1, Block 4, New Virginia Beach, Section 2 - Lynnhaven District - Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 The North Virginia Beach Civic League's (NVBCL) Zoning Review Committee has reviewed the merits of this project and has "no opposition" to the request as presented with the condition that the following proffers be recorded to the said properties: . Proffer a "Deed Restriction" on Lot C for any future development shall be single- family only . Proffer that "no setback variance requests be considered in the future for Lot B" . Proffer the submitted "architectural building elevations" for Lot A & B Should there be any questions please contact me at43I- 1041 x 16. Sincerely, Billy William D. Almond, ASLA Chair, NVBCL Zoning Review Committee Re: Application by C & C Development Co., Inc. and Lysle Ailstock, for a subdivision variance for Lot B, resubdivision of Parcels of B~1 and Lot 1, Block 4, new Virginia Beach, Section 2 - Lynnhaven District - Virginia Beach, VA 23451, The parcel is located on the feeder road between 59th and 60th Street. Dear Members of the City of Virginia Beach, City Council and Planning Commission, We, Chris Thoman and Kari Thoman, residing at 206 60th Street DO NOT SUPPORT the above-referenced application submitted. We have NOT met with the applicant and have NOT discussed the application. We DO NOT feel that this is beneficial to the neighborhood or us. ~t~on, ~:;;:oman 757-639-7087 May 4, 2006 , it ,L.. ~' i . .l .' . ~ f . . " : }). \ ,/', . ,.....' \ .,' ;. ..... ;" ,~ I.t t' / .....-. r ~... ') . ^. I~ / j If)) I I .' ,~ . t ;' .~ .'--, '~./ ~ ) zoo/zoo~ ~gH H~VHg VINIBHIA Z601 90C LSL YVd 90:Z6 NOW 900ZI&Z/SO €= WFS FINANCIAL@ Virginia Beacl1 200 Golden Oak Court Suite 450 Virginia Beadl. VA 23452 FAX DATE To' /' () , I ,/ , rII/m 0/~1Z; ~ J7 c:: From: D WF~e~~S~ Phone: Fax Phone: cc: CBRISTOJ>HER R. THOMAN RllCManaget' Vice Presid..., PIlOD Faxp 200 Golden Oak Suite 450 . Vit,uu.. D...ch . VitSini'" '-Z34S2 Office: 157-49l1-20 15' Cell: 757-639-7037 . F~x: 7S1-306-1092 Email: chri~_thomancSwfmnuncial.com. www.wfsfiRmlciall;om REMARKS; l;J Please GOITlmenl & ClJD Alt7/t-,{//;vg. A -6. ~ ~ I) a:.... / ,,-;"' J-. !l[/O()l-/) f/1?IlYClA~ /lt1/ tJPP~/brVA/ 17( V? P/56t/,SJ' "'II-Ie ~~L-LtW/fiI& f/l.tr~tJS4L Pv'/7?1 YN /AI.fiI~ MIlL I. JI//lFJtt:. j/tn/ld flw~ Fan.'IdYR ;:;~t? .~ '1~7 ~39.?cj(F7 This FAX and any accompanying pages are Intended for thll U$8 of the Individual Of entity to which It Is transmitted and may contain Information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, use or forwarding of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receIve thIs FAX In error, please contact the sender by telephone or FAX and destroy the content immediately. TtJank you. WFSJ.241 (06I23J03) ZOO/TOO~ ~aH HOVaa VINI~HIA Z601 90C lSL YVd SO:66 NOW 9006/6~/~~ May 12, 2006 Faith Christie Department of Planning 2401 Courthouse Dr. Municipal Center, Bldg. 2, Room # 115 Virginia Beach, V A 23456 Dr. and Mrs. Felix A. Hughes, ill 207-A 60th St. Virginia Beach, VA 23451 RE: Application by C & C Development Co., Inc. for Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4B of the Subdivision Ordinance; 19344.5 sq. ft. parcel located at 200 60th St. southwest comer, intersection of 60th St. and Atlantic Avenue, Lynnhaven District. Dear Ms. Christie, I have been informed by the applicant of the above referenced variance, and I am in support of the application. I live at 207-A 60th St, Virginia Beach, VA 2345 L I believe the proposed single family homes are preferable to the duplex condos that seem to be springing up at the North End. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~ Faith Christie Dept. of Planning 2405 Courthouse Dr. Municipal Center, Bldg. 2, Rm 115 Virginia Beach, VA. 23456 RE: Application by C & C Development Co" Inc. for Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance; 19,344.5 sq. ft. parcel located at 200 60th Street, southwest comer, intersection of 60th Street and Atlantic Avenue, Lynnhaven District Dear Ms. Christie, 1 have been informed by the applicant of the above referenced variance, and I am in support of the application. I live at S'i c'L A- TL,G.vI'IL 1.}v Ji., Virginia Beach, VA 23451. Thank you for your consideration. ?( j)~ .M ICJJHL J.+ SPfwC,:.Jl e5 c \{ILlS '\\ \\ '" ,4G,(<.\;\l. j" L.<lJII{, Me; +- r...,.o.....'\LI "2(;,1,1.-.1(; [ \ C:"'Mf'i.hl~ .M "S\NC LI' Faith Christie Dept. of Planning 2405 Courthouse Dr. Municipal Center, Bldg. 2, Rm 115 Virginia Beach, V A. 23456 RE: Application by C & C Development Co., Inc. for Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance; 19,344.5 sq. ft. parcel located at 200 601h Street, southwest comer, intersection of 60th Street and Atlantic Avenue, Lynnhaven District Dear Ms. Christie, I have been infomi~d ~y the ~pplicantJltt!le ~Qov%efeinced31ianCe, and I am in support of the applIcatIon. I bve at L-l.J'1 t5 ()..E; Virginia Beach, VA 23451. =:~f~~[~~ 6. Lu-~lv-"taJly~ Re: Application by C & C Development Co., Inc., and Lysle Ailstock, for a subdivision variance for Lot B, resubdivision of parcels of B-1 and Lot 1, Block 4, new Virginia Beach, Section 2 - Lynnhaven District - Virginia Beach, VA 23451. The parcel is located on the feeder road between 59th and 60th Street. Dear Members of the City of Virginia Beach, City Council, and Planning Commission, I, -::.~,;,0~ ~J9v , residing at 2 Ie? ({f.>1fSf- support the above-referenced application as submitted. We have met with the applicant and have discussed the application, and we feel it is beneficial to us and the neighborhood. Thank you for your-'consideration. Sincerely, ~'//7' i ,...........~ ".;; / ,. c<' ~ { April ,2006 Faith Christie Dept. of Planning 2405 Courthouse Dr. Municipal Center, Bldg. 2, Rm 115 Virginia Beach, V A. 23456 RE: Application by C & C Development Co., Inc. for Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance; 19,344.5 sq. ft. parcel located at 200 60th Street, southwest corner, intersection of 60lh Street and Atlantic A venue, Lynnhaven District Dear Ms. Christie, I have been informed by the applicant of the above referen~ed var\~~e, and I am, in support of the application. I live at Lf~ o~ Pr + I 4. V\ 1-1 c.. !-\ v -c Vl4 .....:,.-/ Virginia Beach, VA 23451. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, tS+/1-i!-Y' \j. jl~~ $r~ d..1-e..5 . .........1 .I i /, :IIi A 1.." ft /1......:;,,~ . ,,- ..-p;. PV4.1..~o ~/0(,j7 (jZflllo.{, . #l~krrt%. P1~a"';'112 c;..A1/I1. />},0.J A -r/ :t,n; 1 ",(J_ I (I! I i..t. -.:.J.f' t1.f'~i! ~ , ~. ,~; \.;r~ I v'AAle.I!cr.fIirbt ,." '/? wC !-J!- ~otL5~ Vl14...rAl0. t4-.. . ~ VA ;13 ~ I if. (7)7) 7/t:5-Zr3o .~~--~.---.- ----:"-~--- -. ...., ~~ :;:;..~:".,,> .. ~: ~'"./ b, Ck; Jkvd"':..-Tt:0.b'j,a.-I Jk 4* Ail;tf~ dt .~.a~~v;;Id'" ~:u.:C(. Iv; btL~~{~frIf~ ~~. 4 6~~ ~ ~{~I .EI d '0 n4J I/~N,f' 11-< :;&Ii"",,,< -L'INtI U<lJ PiJj,J -tlVJt~Me-( iIif . "Jkr rllU if ~L M z;t.,p~e ~ ~ tf;fgA--f 6og~:6~:23 V~ / (I C lJ~ M ~".ttfv d1le~d .. u ;;kdj ~ u-n4~ ~k df~/;N}Is ?Jm~fI;L. Ul!~ Jlrd ,tt J~ . f s:<~t:rj ~ftJ .. I !k:1l~,~U4:cI:~~~4 .h ~~~".e.~ell~:4~r~4h ~~ ~~ ~7 ~;f u .P-.4lt~ .11: )~1k ~ ~5i1>-:&y f ~~ --ji; t<..f M<.('~ ,.v:: 'nL. hAL. ~ zg'fii:l t& ~~ ~ '../ r~?:J-w fkit ) A . y: r ~ i 7J...L ,'tJ 1~r> 44f- i ., cr Ai-It~ -;l . No & Re: Application by C & C Development Co., Inc., and Lysle Ailstock, for a subdivision variance for Lot B, resubdivision of parcels of B-1 and Lot 1, Block 4, new Virginia Beach, Section 2 - Lynnhaven District - Virginia Beach, VA 23451. The parcel is located on the feeder road between 59th and 60th Street. Dear Members of the City of Virginia Beach, City Council, and Planning Commission, I, [\A, OA.Il'1 .,..~ , residing at 2/~ ~ ~pport the above-referenced application'as shbmitt~. We have met with the applicant and have discussed the application, and we feel it is beneficial to us and the neighborhood. Thank you for your'consideration. Sincerely, ~~k~ Aprilf~, 2006 RECEIVED MAY::~ lOG 1 PLANNING DEPARIMENT Re: Application by C & C Development Co., Inc., and Lysle Ailstock, for a subdivision variance for Lot B, resubdivision of parcels of B-1 and Lot 1, Block 4, new Virginia Beach, Section 2 - Lynnhaven District - Virginia Beach, VA 23451. The parcel is located on the feeder road between 59th and 60th Street. Dear Members of the City of Virginia Beach, City Council, and Planning Commission, I,::r~w.e.5 At(~~residing at A t\ tDCJ~upport the above-referenced application as submitted. We have met with the applicant and have discussed the application, and we feel it is beneficial to us and the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. tttU- ~ Sincerely, AprilJ>2006 ." RECEIVED MAY;; tOG,) PLANNING DEPARTMENT Re: Application by C & C Development Co., Inc., and Lysle Ailstock, for a subdivision variance for Lot B, resubdivision of parcels of B-1 and Lot 1, Block 4, new Virginia Beach, Section 2 - Lynnhaven District - Virginia Beach, V A 23451. The parcel is located on the feeder road between 59th and 60th Street. Dear Members of the City of Virginia Beach, City Council, and Planning Commission, I, ..-1~~ ",G,'Y\dc>V\ , residing at c2bO bD-fh g.... support the above-referenced applicatiOn as submitted. We have met with the applicant and have discussed the application, and we feel it is beneficial to us and the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, .A-b- ~ April 1(2006 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Jessup Construction, L.L.C. - Subdivision Variance, 973 Little Neck Road (DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN) MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Bac~ground: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Jessup Construction, L.L.C. Property is located at 973 Little Neck Road (GPIN 14888412810000). DISTRICT 5- LYNNHAVEN . Considerations: The applicant requests a subdivision variance that will allow the creation of two lots from what is currently a 2.02 acre lot. Both lots exceed the minimum lot size by more than twice the minimum requirement; however, one of the lots will have only 81 feet of frontage along Little Neck Road rather than the required 100 feet. The parcel is large, irregularly shaped, and of an unusual depth. It does appear, therefore, that sufficient hardship exists that justifies the granting a variance. It must be noted that this property does not have access to City sewer; however, there are options available, including connecting to a nearby HRSD force main. The applicant's engineer has met with the Department of Public Utilities, and the ultimate determination regarding the ability to hook into a public sanitary sewer system will not be known until a full site plan review is performed. Public Utilities' Staff indicated that additional information is needed to determine the feasibility for these proposed parcels to hook up to public sewer. However, use of septic systems for sewage disposal is not recommended due to the location of the proposed parcels within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. To ensure that development occurs only if the parcels are connected to the public utility system, a condition to that affect is recommended below. There was opposition to the request. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: Jessup Construction Page 2 of 2 1. The final plat shall show no more than two (2) parcels, as depicted on the plan entitled, " Middle Plantation Hills and Lot 7 Property of W.E. Beasley," dated February 14, 2005, prepared by Bonifant Land Surveys. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department. The following condition has been added since the Planning Commission hearing and is recommended by staff: 2. The parcels shall connect to and utilize the public water and sewer system. . 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: ~ lC.. ~~ JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item 27 June 14, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. APPLICATION HISTORY: This application was indefinitely deferred by the Planning Commission at the April 2006 public hearing. The applicant requested a deferral in order to address concerns with the number of proposed lots and concerns that the surrounding property owners expressed related to connection of the proposed houses into a public sewer system. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 973 Little Neck Road. GPIN: 14888412810000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 5-LYNNHAVEN SITE SIZE: 88,183 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST Existing Lot: The existing lot is 88,183 square feet (2.02 acres) Proposed Lots: It was originally the intent of the applicant to subdivide the property into three (3) parcels for the development of three (3) single-family dwellings. The applicant has revised the request and reduced the number of parcels down to two (2). Both lots exceed the minimum lot size by more than twice the requirement, however, Lot 7A-1 B will have only 81 feet of frontage along Little Neck Road rather than the required 100 feet. Item Required Lot 7A-1A Lot 7A-18 Lot Width in feet 100 118.12 81.06* Lot Area in square feet 20,000 44,134.60 44,043.60 *Variance required JESSUP C0NSTRUCTION ,A.genda Item 27 Pag~ 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped vacant site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . USE AND ZONING: South: . East: . West: . Single-family dwelling / R-20 Residential District Single-family dwelling / R-20 Residential District Little Neck Road, single-family dwellings / R-20 Residential District Single-family dwellings / R-20 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The property is located within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. A portion of the site is within the Resource Protection Area, the most stringently regulated area of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. The City's Chesapeake Bay staff has reviewed the project and granted an administrative variance for minimal encroachment into the variable width buffer. The following are the conditions for administrative variance approval and must be shown on all plans submitted to the Development Services Center (DSC): 1. A pre-construction meeting shall be convened with Civil Inspections prior to any land disturbance, inclusive of demolition. 2. Accurately define the top of bank on the subsequent submittals. 3. Dual 36" erosion and sedimentation control measures (silt fences) shall be installed prior to any land disturbance and shall remain in place until such time as vegetative cover is established. 4. Permanent or temporary soil stabilization shall be applied to all disturbed / denuded area(s) prior to a final building inspection or certificate of occupancy, 5. The construction access way shall be noted on the site plan, as well as the stockpile staging area. 6. Stormwater from proposed impervious cover for both lots shall be conveyed to stormwater management facilities. 7. Under deck treatment of sand and gravel shall be installed. 8. No structural improvements shall lie within ten (10) feet of the first 100- foot RPA buffer for both lots. 9. The forested area along the water on both lots shall be left in a natural state to include the forest floor (leaf litter) left intact. Said condition shall be noted on the site plan. 10. The first 50-foot portion of the buffer (seaward 50) not dedicated to forest floor or canopy shall be restored. Trees shall be installed twenty- five (25) feet on center, shrubs at fifteen (15) feet on center. Trees shall be at a minimum 1 Y2 inch caliper and shrubs shall be a minimum of three-gallon containers. In addition, the said restoration shall have a mulch layer of organic material four (4) to six (6) inches in depth. 11 . A separate landscape / buffer restoration plan shall be submitted concurrent with the site plan detailing location, number, and species of vegetation to be installed. 12. Any additional accessory structures not shown on this plan shall be JESSUP CE>NSTRUCTION Agendaltel"rr27 P~g~ 2 located only within the RMA or within the variable width portion of the butter. 13. All butter restoration must be installed prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any lot in this subdivision. 14. The conditions and approval associated with this variance are based on the site plan dated May 31, 2006 prepared by Bonifant Land Surveys, entitled, CBPA SITE PLAN. 15. Revised site plans for each lot shall be submitted to the Development Services Center (DSC) for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Inclusive of the first submittal of any site plan shall be a master drainage plan. In lieu of a master drainage plan, a site plan showing all three lots and improvements may be submitted. 16. Prior to the submittal of the individual site plans and the final plat, a preliminary subdivision plat must be submitted to the DSC for review and approval. 17. Administrative Variance Fee (due during the preliminary subdivision plat review) of $150.00. _ 18. Full RPA Site Plan Review Fee (for each lot) of $280.00. 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): There are no CIP projects in the area which impact on this proposal. WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is a 16 inch City water main in Little Neck Road. SEWER: This site is not within an existing pump station service area. Pump station analysis for potential receiving pump station will be required. There is an 18 inch HRSD force main in Little Neck Road. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Primary Presidential area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. JESSUP CONSTRUCTION A~enda Iter:n.27 Page 3 Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self- inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this Subdivision Variance request for two (2) single-family parcels on the 2.02 acre property. While the property does have sufficient land area for more than the two (2) parcels, the lot frontage requirement is deficient for parcel 7A-1 B with only 81.60 feet. Originally, the applicant proposed to subdivide the property into three (3) parcels for the development of three (3) single-family dwellings. The applicant has revised the request and reduced the number of parcels down to two (2). This reduction, Staff feels, is more in keeping with the surrounding residential parcels. As the parcel is large, irregularly shaped and of an unusual depth, Staff is supportive of the variance. Staff is supportive of the creation of one (1) additional lot beyond what is permitted by right, for a total of two (2) lots. The applicant has met with the City's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Staff to update the request that was originally approved in April 2006. The original Administrative Variance to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance approval was based on three (3) parcels. It was not known at the time of the original approval that this property does not have access to City sewer. The applicant's engineer has met with the Department of Public Utilities, however, the ultimate determination as the ability to hook into a public sanitary sewer system will not be known until a full site plan review is performed. Public Utilities' Staff indicated that additional information is needed to determine the feasibility for these proposed parcels to hook up to public sewer. JESSUP CONSTRUCTION A~enda Harm 27 Pag~4 CONDITIONS 1. The final plat shall show no more than two (2) parcels, as depicted on the plan entitled, " Middle Plantation Hills and Lot 7 Property of W.E. Beasley," dated February 14, 2005, prepared by Bonifant Land Surveys. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on tile with the Virginia Beach Planning Department. 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. JESSUP CQNSTRUCllON Agenda Itertl27 Page 5 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION S05"44'1rE 9lIJ!2' t ~ O~ < tnu po..: .,< fl ....- '" r~ l>. .. :z -- iL- _ \ r \ I I l .\ 1 \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAT "':::, ""<'y.,. iV" -- ,"~. ~r':) ," M' ~;':;'lll)"::::';;;- JESSUP C6~$TRUC~10N :Agenda1t~s21 ., ..~~~~~7 ;'."'-; 1 02/23/99 CUP (church parking lot) Granted 10/14/97 CUP (church) Granted 2 06/27/95 CUP (church addition) Granted OS/28/91 CUP (church) Granted ZONING HISTORY . . ,"":""''',t)y;<~:''~:" ';~ JESSUP C$t4STRUG~\O~r - Ag~nc::lalt' '..:127; 'lS.""5 \% ~.~~ ~Q.t::P "i. 'ia'~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~:;~ ~~~ l::;~. t""~ <bf.! !. o 1 ~ '" ;e \\ .~ .g .~ % ~ 1Ji ~ ~ u.l~ 0 15~ ~ (f,I~ '0 g~ \~ %.... ~ rh ~% ~..~. ~ ';r. e -;..'" , 4. ~...;::;t't: ~a~ - t."';~ 4. - ~.....; c '" i '$ Z, ~ ~ ci. .~ ~ -::c ~ % ~ ~ <> <> '" !-. o~ z~ ~~ g~ ~~ '1>'" \s~ \~g \ !~ \ \;: \ ...~ ()O " Item #27 Jessup Construction Subdivision Ordinance 973 Little Neck Road District 5 Lynnhaven June 14,2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: Ms. Lasley, on Jessup Construction, are we going to hear that or are they discussing that outside? Karen Lasley: They have been working very hard out there. I think they are ready, and I have been told there is some agreement, and they would like to present the case to you. Barry Knight: Would it be appropriate to hear it now, or do they need to discuss it? Karen Lasley: Is that all you have left? Barry Knight: We have Wave Church. Karen Lasley: I'm sorry. They are ready to go. Barry Knight: Jessup Construction is? Karen Lasley: Right. Barry Knight: Okay. Thank you. Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #27, Jessup Construction, appeal to decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Jessup Construction Company, L.L.c. The property is located at 973 Little Neck Road, District 5, Lynnhaven with one condition. Barry Knight: Mr. Macali. Bill Maca1i: Mr. Chairman, I think I should have spoken up before. But the vote on the Mathews Green application should include both items 16 and 17, the street closure. Barry Knight: Yes sir. That is how it was presented. Bill Macali: Then the Commission did vote to recommend the street closure as well. Barry Knight: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Watson. Item #27 Jessup Construction Page 2 Les Watson: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Les Watson and I'm a local attorney. I understand that at one point this may have been on the consent agenda and then speakers appeared. I don't want to subject you to more than you want to listen to. Plus I dropped my file in a fairly deep puddle of water and all my pictures are stuck together and it's a mess. Anyway, we believe we have addressed all the concerns of the adjoining neighbors who were here prepared to speak, and I think we reduced most of those, and I think all of them, into written memoranda. Ms. Hammer, who is one of the adjacent property owners, would like to make one statement before you, but if that is suitable, I won't subject you to anymore of me. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Watson. Are there any questions of Mr. Watson? Fine. Mr. Strange. Les Watson: I'll stand over here just in case. Joseph Strange: Which of the speakers wanted to speak? Les Watson: Ms. Hammer. Barry Knight: Welcome ma'am. Julia Hammer: Hi. Thanks. I'm Julia Hammer. My home is located very close to one of the homes. Barry Knight: Pull your laser pointer, right up on the comer, and push the button. Julia Hammer: Alright. One of the homes would be right there. It is 15 feet behind our fence line, which I realize is the minimum allowed. I talked to the builder and he would happily put it as far further north as possible but there are some restrictions with his Chesapeake Bay area. Anyway, I've talked about providing some privacy landscaping just between our fence lines. It is a lot closer than your typical home in the area. But pretty much talked about it. We're just requesting that if it is possible, if he could go as many feet away from 15 feet. Barry Knight: Thank you. If he adheres to your conditions, you would withdrawal your opposition? Julia Hammer: Yeah. Barry Knight: Okay. Mr. Strange would you like to call to see if anyone else would like to speak? Joseph Strange: Yes. Would you like me to call their names or if there are other people who are signed up is there anyone else who would like to come forward. Item #27 Jessup Construction Page 3 Barry Knight: Okay. Joseph Strange: Your name sir? Guy Liskey: Guy Liskey. Joseph Strange: Okay Guy. Barry Knight: We1come sir. Please state your name again in the microphone. Guy Liskey: Hi. My name is Guy Liskey, and I live at 3416 Montgomery Place. I'm an adjacent property. I live right here. That is my home right there. One of our concerns is that this back lot here, particularly on this north side, is all wetlands ahd protected. It's a drop off, and there are waterways that flow out into the Lynnhaven River. You can see in the next slide that was up, it was shown where these RP A and RMA buffer zones are, which over the course of the last few months seemed to have changed positions from one map to the next. So it basically runs like this. With one of the houses proposed to go here, and one of the proposed houses proposed to go here Julia, the lady who was just up, I'm the President of the Homeowners Association, I'm sorry, I failed to mention that. We've had meetings usually about once a month to bring up this topic and some of the changes. We have been down here three times or two times. At the eleventh hour it has been deferred. I have to kind of remember who I'm talking too at this point because I feel like I'm still back at my Homeowners Association meeting. But, Mr. Matter has agreed with Julia to rotate the house and move it at least four feet, which is the minimum requirement, 'away from her property. This area does have drainage issues. The City was just out here repairing a drain that goes into this area right here. He is agreed to pitch the land naturally so the flow goes down this way like it is intended and away from Julia's home. My concern is back in here. It's all wooded property, very attractive wooded property with all kind of natural wildlife. We had made an agreement between us to possibly purchase the small part of this lot right back here at an angle from our fence line over to this first lot to ensure that the new neighbors do not cut down the trees, and will keep that area in its natural. That is why I bought into that area. Thank you very much. Barry Knight: Thank you sir. Are there any other questions? Okay Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: I'm going to callout each one of these names. Terri Liskey. Would you like to speak? Terri Liskey: I decline. Joseph Strange: Paloma Sugg? Paloma Sugg: I decline. Item #27 Jessup Construction Page 4 Joseph Strange: Okay. Tim Beeckler. Tim Beeckler: I decline. Joseph Strange: Harry Hampson. Harry Hampson: I decline. Joseph Strange: And Johnny Johnson. Johnny Johnson: I'll speak. Barry Kllight: We1come sir. Please state your name for the record. - Johnny Johnson: My name is Johnny Johnson. I live at 981 Little Neck Road. I own the land that borders the north boundary right along there. And I had two concerns that I believe are both addressed. The first one was landscaping and how we would protect all the natural habitat because that is a very rich natural area. And I believe the work of the City staff along with the builder has already addressed all that in the plan, and all the conditions that I see laid out in the agenda. I had one other concern, that the builder has agreed to, and that is my grandson's bedroom overlooks the house right there. I wanted to avoid having to hear a heat and air condition pump and all the noise that goes with it right underneath his bedroom window. The builders agreed that he would locate the pump away from there so it won't keep my grandson awake. So, I'm satisfied. Barry Knight: Thank you sir. You know that our verbatim is recorded and it goes to City Council. So everything you said is recorded so if you have any discrepancies you can come back and get our verbatim. Johnny Johnson: Thank you very much. Have a good day. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: That is all the speakers. Barry Knight: Mr. Watson. Les Watson: In consideration of those statements, we have executed a memorandum. The subdivision, I wasn't aware of that subdivision part of the lot. On the air conditioning and the landscaping, we have a memorandum with the adjacent property owners based on the foregoing, I hope you positively consider the application. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions? Ms. Wood. Item #27 Jessup Construction Page 5 Dorothy Wood: I would really like to thank you Mr. Watson, and your client, for working with us. I know when you first brought it, it had three lots and you have gone to two. You have worked with the neighbors. We like to see that. Les Watson: Thank you ma'am. Thank you for all your advice and consideration. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Watson? Thank you sir. Open it up for discussion. Mr. Henley. Al Henley: The gentleman, and he was just the last one up to speak, and he had some concerns on whether the wooded area behind the proposed lot being developed would ever be disturbed. To give you some assurance, that particular area, I believe, falls into the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, and it is either the RP A or RMA. That means that you can't cut those trees, and if you do, there is a penalty on that. I'm sure this will be coming before the CPBA, or has it already come before the CBP A? It has already been before? Karen Lasley: It has administrative approval, because they are not disturbing that area. AI Henley: Just to give the gentleman some assurance, once construction does start, they have some pretty stringent requirements on protecting those areas. But if you do have any concerns you can call the City Department of Planning. Civil Inspections is one particular area that does monitor those things, and if anyone is found to be delinquent or violating those terms and conditions, they have some severe penalties that would be upon them. Just to let you know. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Henley. Are there any other comments? Discussion? The Chair will entertain a motion. Eugene Crabtree: I move that we approve the application as presented. Barry Knight: Thank you. Do I have a second? Mr. Henley. There is a motion on the floor by Gene Crabtree and a second by Al Henley to approve agenda item #27 for Jessup Construction. 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 Item #27 Jessup Construction Page 6 RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the application of Jessup Construction. Map K-18 Mop Not to Scole United AG-I Subdivision Variance and Fioodpiain Variance CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: United States Fish and Wildlife Service - (a) Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations and (b) Subdivision Ordinance, 1808 Nanneys Creek Road (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Background: a) Application of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for a Variance to Section 58 of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations on property located at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road (GPIN 2410189180). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE b) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Property is located at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road (GPIN 2410189180). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE . Considerations: The applicant seeks a subdivision variance in order to divide this existing lot into two parcels. One of the parcels, ParceI1-A, will be purchased by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) from the current property owner, who will retain ownership of Parcel 1. Much of Parcel 1-A is below an elevation of two (2) feet and is marsh. The remaining site is entirely below elevation five (5) feet mean sea level, including the existing home on Parcel 1. While the subdivision plat shows a 'proposed house' on ParceI1-A, the USFWS has no intention of building the house. The house is being shown to indicate that the proposed parcel meets the requirements necessary to be considered a buildable lot. A subdivision variance is required to both lot width and lot area for both proposed parcels due to the low elevations on the property. In the Back Bay watershed, areas within the 100 year floodplain cannot be counted toward the minimum lot area or lot width requirements for subdivision purposes. Physically, Parcel1-A will have approximately 220 feet along Nanneys Creek Road and Parcel 1 will have approximately 420 feet along Nanneys Creek Road. Parcel1-A will measure 27.99 acres and Parcel 1 will measure 50.17 acres. However, due to the floodplain, the width does not count, and for zoning purposes, the width of both lots is zero, and a Subdivision Variance is required, Section 5B.5(b) of the Site Plan Ordinance does not permit new residential dwelling structures to be constructed within the floodplain subject to special restrictions on lots created after the effective date of the ordinance, which was United States Fish and Wildlife Service Page 2 of 2 October 23, 2001. One (1) new dwelling, drainfield, well site and gravel drive are depicted on the ParceI1-A, all of which are proposed within the floodplain, and thus a Floodplain Variance is necessary. The Planning Commission placed these items on the consent agenda because the requests will preserve environmental features significant to the protection of Back Bay and there was no opposition to the requests. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve the request with the following conditions: 1. The parcels shall be subdivided and recorded as depicted on the plan entitled "Property of Bonnie Woodhouse Crane" prep~red by Woolpert, L.L.P., and dated 02-24-06. This exhibit is on file with the Planning Department. 2. Prior to any new dwelling being constructed on the property, a floodplain mitigation plan meeting all performance standards listed in Section 5(8)(f) of the Site Plan Ordinance shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department, Development Services Center. 3. For Parcel 1, the area of fill associated with any new dwelling shall not exceed 6,700 square feet as shown on the preliminary floodplain mitigation plan calculations prepared by Woolpert, L.L.P. and dated 03-09- 06. These calculations are on file with the Planning Department. 4. For Parcel 1-A, the amount of fill associated with any new dwelling shall not exceed 19,000 cubic feet as shown on the preliminary floodplain mitigation plan calculations prepared by Woolpert, L.L.P. and dated 03-09- 06. These calculations are on file with the Planning Department. 5. The width and surface material for the driveway serving proposed Parcel 1.A shall be subject to approval by the Fire Department. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ CnYManage~ k ~~ UNITED STATES FISH & WilDLIFE SERVICE Agenda Items 7 & 8 June 14, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn AK Smith REQUEST: Map K-l8 M"p ~ot to 5co1.. United States Fish & Wildlife Servue " ; I' if ,/~~- 1---1 AG-I ' " il 1; ~ f! ~ ---. ~"~~~ ~ / \A~ J ! '....... AG-J (' ! " I'" JAG_I / '....... I. I '.('. 1",1",1"'1"" I D~C7r I 0 I (7) Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. (8) Floodplain Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road, west of Nanney's Creek Court. GPIN: 2410189180 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 78.42 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant seeks a subdivision variance in order to divide this existing lot into two parcels. One of the parcels, ParceI1-A, will be purchased by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS) from the current property owner, who will retain ownership of Parcel 1. Much of Parcel 1-A is below an elevation of two (2) feet and is marsh. While the subdivision plat shows a 'proposed house' on Parcel 1-A, the USFWS has no intention of building the house. The house is being shown to indicate that the proposed parcel meets the requirements necessary to be considered a buildable lot. Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance (Subdivision Variance) Existing Lot: The existing lot is 78.42 acres and has a single-family dwelling on the property. The subject site is located within the Back Bay watershed. Floodplains within the Back Bay watershed are subject to USFWS Agenda Items 7& 8 Page 1 special restrictions as stipulated in the Site Plan, Subdivision and Zoning ordinances. The subject site is entirely below elevation five (5) feet mean sea level, including the existing home site depicted on the plan. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the tract into two (2) parcels. Parcel1-A will measure 27.99 acres and Parcel 1 will measure 50.17 acres. The remaining 0.26 acres will be dedicated to the City for inclusion in the existing right-of-way. A subdivision variance is required to both lot width and lot area for both proposed parcels due to the low elevations on the property. In the Back Bay watershed, areas below the 100 year floodplain elevation of five (5) feet mean sea level cannot be counted toward the minimum lot area or lot width requirements for subdivision purposes. Physically, Parcel1-A will have approximately 220 feet along Nanneys Creek Road and Parcel 1 will have approximately 420 feet along Nanneys Creek Road. Parcel 1-A will measure 27.99 acres and Parcel 1 will measure 50.17 acres. However, due to the floodplain, the width does not count, and for zoning purposes, the width of both lots is zero. .Item J..Qt..1 Lot 1-A Lot Width in feet 150 0 0 Lot Area in square feet 1 acre 0 0 ....~-~ . . ~ it1I "" D. ,* !lr~ ! .. ...~ ., Iii r~- ._ ~.~,~aG1 .~,,~ :J.~.._~~~ll .., ~'" ,.t""~"""'~:\':_~ ~,i.,~._J' f "::".' .'''' .. I- "'., .. f;'... "~;".-" ~.;-~ /..",--,,;:~.. I .i' ." .. ~ r I f~: ..' -..... '1 t: _! L ~ .,~.-':lt ~ USFWS Agenda Items 1',& 8 Page 2 Variance to Section 5B of Site Plan Ordinance. Floodplain Reaulations Section 5B.5(b): This section does not permit new residential dwelling structures to be constructed within the floodplain subject to special restrictions on lots created after the effective date of the ordinance, October 23,2001. One (1) new dwelling, drainfield, well site and gravel drive are depicted on the eastern lot, Parcel1-A, all of which are proposed within the floodplain. The existing dwelling is depicted on the exhibit and will remain on Parcel 1. Section 5B.5(c): This section does not permit filling within the floodplain subject to special restrictions. Filling within the floodplain is required to accommodate the proposed residential dwelling on Parcel 1-A. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Single-family dwelling. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: · Marsh, woods I AG-1 Agricultural District . Nanneys Creek Road · Single-family dwelling / AG-2 Agricultural Districts · Single-family dwellings, woods/ AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District · Nanneys Creek; marsh East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The subject site is within the Southern Watersheds Management Area and is within the 'acquisition area' for the Back Bay refuge. The property is predominately low, flat land and is entirely below the 100 year flood elevation. Nanneys Creek borders the property to the west. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has a contract to purchase proposed Lot 1-A (27.99 acres) for preservation as part of the Back Bay Management Area. No structures will be placed on the property if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gains title to the land. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Nanneys Creek Road is considered a two (2) lane rural roadway. No improvements to this roadway are identified on the Master Transportation Plan or in the current Capital Improvement Program. USBWS Agencla Items 7 ~ 8 Page 3 WATER & SEWER: Public water and sewer are not available to this site. Health Department approval for wells and septic is required. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as the Rural Area, noting that the area is to remain rural into the foreseeable future. As such, it must rely on sound rural planning principles and effective economic strategies to help it retain it~ character and vitality. The proposal is consistent with the Plan's recommendations for this area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance (Subdivision Variance) Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self- inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the Subdivision Variance as requested. The proposed subdivision of the 78.42 acre parcel into two (2) lots would be allowed by right if the property were not below the 100 year floodplain elevation. However, within the Back Bay watershed, areas below the 100 year floodplain elevation of five (5) feet mean sea level cannot be counted toward the minimum lot area or lot width requirements for subdivision purposes. As such, technically, there is no property that can be counted USFWS Agenda Items 7& 8 Page 4 toward lot width or lot area. Physically, Parcel1-A will have approximately 220 feet along Nanneys Creek Road and Parcel 1 will have approximately 420 feet along Nanneys Creek Road. Parcel1-A will measure 27.99 acres and Parcel 1 will measure 50.17 acres. The remaining .26 acres will be dedicated to the City for inclusion in the existing right-of-way. Variance to Section 58 of Site Plan Ordinance (Floodplain Variance) Section 58.8 (a) of the Site Plan Ordinance states: No variance shall granted unless the City Council finds that: A. Such variance will not create or result in unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, nuisances, fraud or victimization of the public. B. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to other property in the vicinity. C. The circumstances giving rise to the variance application are not a general or recurring nature. D. Such circumstances arise from the physical character of the property or from the use or development of adjacent property and not form the personal situation of the applicant. E. The granting of such variance will not be in conflict with any ordinance or regulation of the city. Section 58.8 (f) provides additional guidance in the evaluation of Floodplain Variance applications. The section notes that no variance shall be granted by the Council unless the following performance standards are met: 1. Filling shall be limited to the smallest volume and area possible. 2. Floodplain storage capacity shall be mitigated at a one-to-one ratio of storage capacity created for area filled to ensure no net loss of storage occurs as result of filling. 3. All floodplain mitigation shall be located on the project site and shall be located contiguous to the existing floodplain. 4. The general characteristics and functions of the floodplain shall not be adversely affected. 5. Wetlands protection and buffer area requirements set forth in section 7 of the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance (Appendix G) are met or a variance there from is granted." Staff also recommends approval of the variance to Section 5(8) of the Site Plan Ordinance to allow the fill necessary to construct a residential dwelling on the property as shown on the exhibit. It must, however, be emphasized that although the plan depicts a proposed dwelling, there are no immediate plans to construct a home on ParceI1-A. If the United States Fish and Wildlife Service purchases the 27.99 acre site, the residential dwelling will not be constructed. The existing dwelling on the eastern lot will remain. Because the construction of the residential dwelling on the proposed western lot is not imminent, the floodplain mitigation plan submitted by the applicant is preliminary in nature. Additional work on the floodplain mitigation plan will be needed in order to meet the performance standards listed above; therefore, staff has included conditions to address this as noted below. In sum, Staff is supportive of both variance requests. The Subdivision Variance and the Floodplain Variance will allow the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase the 27.99 acre parcel, which is USFWS Agenda Items 7&8 Page 5 located within the Back Bay Acquisition Area, for inclusion into the Back Bay Management Area. This purchase will be a benefit, not a detriment, to the surrounding area. CONDITIONS 1. The parcels shall be subdivided and recorded as depicted on the plan entitled "Property of Bonnie Woodhouse Crane" prepared by Woolpert, L.L.P., and dated 02-24-06. This exhibit is on file with the Planning Department. 2. Prior to any new dwelling being constructed on the property, a floodplain mitigation plan meeting all performance standards listed in Section 5(B)(f) of the Site Plan Ordinance shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department, Development Services Center. 3. For Parcel 1, the area of fill associated with any new dwelling shall not exceed 6,700 square feet as shown on the preliminary floodplain mitigation plan calculations prepared by Wool pert, L.L.P. and dated 03-09-06. These calculations are on file with the Planning Department. 4. For Parcel1-A, the amount of fill associated with any new dwelling shall not exceed 19,000 cubic feet as shown on the preliminary floodplain mitigation plan calculations prepared by Wool pert, L.L.P. and dated 03-09-06. These calculations are on file with the Planning Department. 5. The width and surface material for the driveway serving proposed Parcel1-A shall be subject to approval by the Fire Department. 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. USFWS Agenda Items 7<& 8 Page 6 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION ''f''/,- , ~>~i:"~';~';>'~-'-~" . " .F:' ~,':',:,'~.-,:\:.:">.,,. , usews Age~eta Items ?i~~8 . . ;,] @ ~"~rMII'__ ..._ft...... .:.:=~~ -= ,. ---____0IlI ==~----- .. ____011____ @ _.~& -...... --..... ..... -... @ _..&.or. unrr"'.1fIIIQlIm' .....,.....- "'_"''IIM --..... N ~II! i '.1 . fii . i ...:tl_ .....- sa._"... --...... --- 0 Q 0 .......--- [ "'=' C::::::, "'/\ ......r'1. .. . -.... ~,.. 1.1 itV:-5 (';) .-- -- r----, _.._~. -- 'v -;:.~ c (J C:> -- -- "'-- - --..,. /'. ~ f., :IJ' - 'I' -_.,., --.., a;: =::--.... 0lW .............~ ...-.. ~ IWQ a.1'''''- 1 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAT ( United States Fish I I~ AG-I I I & I I Wildlife Service I /0 I I 01 r C? ! c:l I c;:'\ I 0.. ! D ,cl/ o o' 0 ~ A1G"'-1 ~ /J' >< 1 01-31-06 FLOODPLAIN VARIANCE Granted SUBDIVISION VARIANCE 2 06-09-92 CUP (sinqle familv homes) Granted 3 07-09-91 SUBDIVISION VARIANCE Granted ZONING HISTORY ,;,.^"J~"" <.' " "'~ USF1WS Ag~a Items II:lSt 8. . a:.';."~~~9 ~.' - - ~;~",~:,~ '~"'l' v , ~,,~ ~ nddVHJNVnIVA NOISIAI{lHnS-~ 'i iii' e g ''N a ~ l~ ~ .5 I ~ - ;' I::: ~ ~ I ~ 2 ~ i ~ ~ ~ l'i -3 ! Ih ~: !f IIi ~J ~i~ i i~J ii~il~ I "~l ~IU! Inl..' QJ.1.-la ~ $ ~~ ~:e..S! i5 i ~.s:l .$I~'~.2}~ I"'~i :.i..gi;lJl~. II It 1 ~a!g ~ i ~~l 1:O,,~-;;~:iZ j :;~ jl!..,:::; E, w !;:; l!!i..: =~....::; t'l ,z 15 tf;~ U> ... e:, ;;; E E .., ci. E ~ ~ 1:: .. "" ~ I ^ n.. I ~ ~ ! I ! I ! E .. 1;0 e ~ ~: i I ~ ! wi! 'Ill! I i I ~jB 'l5~1 I i~l 9ie' ~!l ! l$~l ~f~g>~~ i-~Il Q .<: ~!l!... IS}.... ~.tl"''5=- 1"'- Ill:;; ~-~~ . ~~ ~~~~~~ I ~~ >-~5i1~S. . E,S ~ ~ il ~'; ., ~ Si '" "-' :e~~~~~ 0"". !~I ~';,8~~C.8I~~ ;;~ CL'i:;Qa ,g 2i! ~ ~_ CG ::!ll.!\!o~ .s'5 ",z g$i~>>~12~ :g5 a;il;;tC~" ~.~ ",eve-a "~S;o. .~.;::-.!eo. .~= "':c. ;j!!"~~ ~~!8 -~~5.s ,c, ~;::, S?Q.07ii!2 ~e ;;~ ~1!~:::U' t: ~ ;:;:e <f u= 5.,...: ;:. N ~ .. lo.' ~~ ..~ =; ~"" -Cl ~i ~,'- <;<1'1'" '" ~. <1',- ~~ ",... ~i! OCi 5J NOIlYJI1ddV HJNVnIVA NOIS ~ ~I ~I m~ " ..~l.; 'il ~1 !...i~j~ i Z CI2! ~l !II I ~i ~! i 1.'.} , . .;::.. , I c. ~' e -~ 5;~ ~"'. t~~ ~ll ,~ ~ j ~ g -'.:l). .. g, ~~ :te~ ....2 o~ ~<:.; ill ~15 ~.~ l^e "'''' -ll; ~ t5 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT , ','" .:fr "N f . '-'.:'; '" . -' :- of'vagima. . .~; . NatIOaal WUdl.ifc RefUge' ." . .~~ Woodbouse(246) . . . , -",,", "~. 1!D3-176?C DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (ADDENDUM) f" ~_~, f' ,~-~~-.~",'> , Us.f1jWS Ag~a Uems"a ;~ , , . , . . . . occiiUing priW:'kithe~. ()f~faetmy title in THE UNiTBI:) STA,jgOF~;J byrea<iOn of the unauthOrized cutting 'Of ,removal of products ~m, or ~8use of :fire; , shall be bome , bY~, y~and~, in,tbe.efent any such.1oSsor4~ge ~!:~e united ~ mai. . ,~WithoUtliabilifitt;io ftP,.;..wi.iJoo"'ofS3idlan,"ds'oi'iti1ii:'electtoa":eon\'1ce, , ., " '.'" 'OJ.',,: ~":,~. ", '., "'~>'" ~.eyan 1lpOn an eqW.tJible adjustment of the purchase prlce~'':';; , '. '-':Y" . " ' , .' , , . , , -- ,," , /' ' ,"" .... ", 4.. The velidof,fuJ.1her ~,'that 'OOringthe period ~ 1ty;fhiSmsttumeDt officers and ' ,'..~":. oftbeUmtCd~sballl1avea.t:~~tirnes' !~.", . ' ' iigbtmid 1:_ ,:~; .' 'saicllanl&\toraln~' '.""mof' 'ooofsaidlatidsand zt~ij~~';;'''' .- ~{f!\~~;~ -:;':-:.;r ',:',.~,~,;~':~( ',' , . ~'"-''' ' DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (ADDENDUM) '~ ~, ,; '''' ,USl3WS Age!i~~ ftems .8: ':',P2 . : : ,; y ~ 11~ . P.rlort().~.datetitle.vests of record ~er1:ts 'fortbe entitefisCal year of ' .: .'OCCW[S; whether or not Such taxes wid' " e',.. iTmsobu.....i;.:m' .:. the;~.."" of the ",' .' . " ~~ upon:t-.. <. ;: ! -,a.te due ana payable as oftke date title ve ", '. ""',{ " ~. .,,"';,' "', .'.~~ .~~ ;,' . '.'. . OwneIS ~ the aWard to'be made for ~~. thepurehase price ~.provided. oilier '.;\'~ ttieci}' .' 'onto'~cr ..,...~....,......,.,~ . said landSUifUd ptOc'~1~tt shall be upOn" . 8~' Ris ~'agi~:~t an abstroot;"Y:'.'~:' . . .. -h,~c~ to be sold safisfli' :Pt9P.......... '... . . ,. . . United SUUes. its~. " ..9,';.nism~~~j!)\~.~agreed~" , . . wnbOm.1he~~mtmjWitiDg.qfthe Unf ,.' :~~l:~.~'~~J~~~1~~~~::~ :: . ,'.Crnnmi~oner~~ be.jlimitted to an . ~ .' '.', ',,' ... . . . . .."..'1 ;,. ..~tto~~~:.~o@n&~.' {~:':.::~~r~~~:~. . ~lOOt'be ~~inWhole or in part , .' ';;', ',.t:.:::.:}{: :,::~}: ',':"~t.:~: . egate. tQ 'Q, . ': 9i"R.eSideitt. , , n., .,' ngrc:ss. ....,.. " 's~1br1igie~\~9rtoany . "'ed sh,aU:~.co~:ti:i extmdto . :. enfjs.maae:foi.the~;~ benefit of $'~;'~";: ..:-I.:, .... ,': .,.; ~:~7 :.., , ,,~{ , "';tbe'~or'.~~i(~ idl taxes and .. 'ty:in '!hiCh t1iC.tmnsfer of title . .... "ConstitUte'8, lien on the site. . .. "'''' '-..'~ " '.' ,'" , "", . , ',".' . .onlOt" SUCh taxes' and assessments :'~p~:States. ':.,.:'~'" . ... " "" . . , '. -,.,,' """;", DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (ADDENDUM) $" //". US' ,'. .. ; Agen€l<a Items 8 PaQ~<t.3 . . . ., '. ;.~.' ;~ ',. ,.;. ; . ~:~~~uted by'the s~ ofthe'~()fhel-airthorized ~.Unm after it is repOrted to' her for her consideration, and ~ the vendor fur.and in cOnsideration of the $1.00 herein1lbove'aclmowledged as ~~ ~ and does h<<eb,y gnmt _ ,1'$ UNmID 8!A~~~CA:byandtmo:nSh the~pfthe~or~:~~,~mtive, .otariy othefolficei'or agcney of the United S~sautb.orized to ~BSid'landS~ the option and rigb,t tG enter into this Agreement rorPtirchase withisi 12 monthS from the execution thereof by the ~;~~dtO Plu:chase said landS as lilitem.ptovided.' '. .:." . ,": ' '.,,'.:::,. , .; .~. , .' _A ;~, ., '. ~.. , ,",', ~. . . , - '. , . ~, " ". -'. '. , ~'... ". 'II,- ", '. .,,' ,. <~:.,,~ (;),..,..."..... .' . .. ."'(Vendor)" .. . (L.8.) ~'~:\.r .~~ - ;- ... . :.". ~l' .:" ACKNOWLEDGMENt :~~r ~< : ~ , 'orVIR.GlNJA , . '~.. . ,:'}'" ".' . , ..; :}~:" .::: : ss: ,}:'. . . ~ .:... - DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (ADDENDUM) , " '.. us~s" . Agenda Items 1::~,8.. '" p Items 7 & 8 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan OrdinanceIFlood Plain Regulation Subdivision Ordinance 1808 Nanneys Creek Road District 7 Princess Anne June 14,2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next two items we will take together. They are Items 7 and 8. It is the application from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. It is for a Variance to the Site Plan Ordinance and Floodplain Regulations on property located at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road and also an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance located on the same property, Princess Anne District. Are you the representative from the United States Fish and Wildlife? Jared Brandwein: Yes. I'm Jared Brandwein, future manager and representative for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. = Janice Anderson: Thank you sir. We have placed this on the consent agenda with six conditions. Have you reviewed those and are they acceptable? Jared Brandwein: Yes. They are. Janice Anderson: Is there any opposition to this application? I would like to have Al Henley review this application for us. AI Henley: Thank you. The property consists of approximately 78 acres. Twenty-seven acres of this or slightly over falls within the Back Bay Watershed. As a matter of fact, the entire parcel is in the Back Bay Watershed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed interest. in purchasing this property after the property owner approached them. The property will be subdivided and this particular parcel, which consists of slightly over 27- acres, would be purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The property is currently true wetlands. This two foot elevation with standing water and site history and so forth, and also if it is purchased by them, it will adjoin existing property that is also owned by them, thus creating a total of roughly 70 acres to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The purpose of the purchase is to protect the environmental standards of the Back Bay Watershed for runoff and development and so forth. So, this was one reason why the Commission expressed interest in the consent. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Henley. Thank you, Mr. Brandwein. Jared Brandwein: Thank you. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Custom Granite Manufacturing - Conditional Use Permit (bulk storage), 3488 Chandler Creek Road (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Background: Application of Custom Granite Manufacturing Co. for a Conditional Use Permit for a bulk storage yard on property located at 3488 Chandler Creek Road (GPIN 1485931499). DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL . Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a bulk storage area for stone slabs on the property, in an area behind the existing building. The applicant's business manufactures custom countertops for residential and commercial use. The stone slabs used in the business are only on site for a short duration before they are cut and installed for each customer. The slabs are currently located on the north side of the property, visible from the street. The applicant plans on expanding the existing building, and that expansion will be located in the area where the slabs are currently stored. Additionally, the commerce park where this property is located has deed restrictions requiring outdoor storage to be located in a manner as to not be visible from the street. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposal will improve the appearance of this industrial area and will allow the applicant to expand the business. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the submitted "Exhibit of Lot 13 for Custom Granite Mfg.", prepared by Kellam Gerwitz and dated March 7,2006. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Custom Granite Manufacturing Page 2 of 2 2. The bulk storage area shall only be used for the storage of materials to the applicant's business. There shall be no storage of inoperable contractor equipment or vehicles on the site. There shall be no storage of motor vehicles. There shall be no sale of or the processing of scrap, salvage or secondhand materials on the site. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Manager: ~ \L. ~~ CUSTOM GRANITE MANUFACTURING Agenda Item 5 June 14, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3488 Chandler Creek Aoad. GPIN: 1485931499 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 3 - AOSE HALL Total site - 41,277 SF Bulk Storage Area - approximately 1,125 SF SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant's property was part of a 33 acre rezoning request from A-50 Duplex District to Conditional 1-1 Light Industrial District approved by City Council on July 3, 2001. The applicant's business manufactures custom countertops for residential and commercial use. The stone slabs used in the business are only on site for a short duration before they are cut and installed for each customer. The stone used in the manufacturing of the countertops is currently located on the side of the property. The commerce park that this property is located within has restrictions requiring outdoor storage to be located in manner as to not be visible from the street. The City Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage within the 1-1 Light Industrial District. The applicant, therefore, requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a bulk storage area for stone slabs on the property behind the existing building. The existing, one-story building is currently undergoing an addition and the slabs will be located in a designated area as shown on a site layout provided by the applicant. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: This site is located within Chandler Creek Industrial Park, located on Rosemont Road near its intersection with Dam Neck Road. The site has an existing one-story warehouse / office with parking. CUSTOM GRANITE MANUFACTURING Agenda ItemS Page 1 East: . Open space - undeveloped 1 P-1 Preservation District . Across Chandler Creek Road, construction is underway for a commercial structure 11-1 Light Industrial District . Undeveloped site (landscaping materials are currently being stored on it) 11-1 Light Industrial District . City-owned parcel containing a stormwater management facility 1 R-5D Residential Duplex District SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING; North: South: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES; The site is developed for a warehouse and office. No significant natural resource or cultural features are associated with this parcel. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 dB Ldn to 70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana and is impacted by a restrictive AICUZ easement. The federal government holds easements on the site and limits the types of uses that may develop and operate on the site. The proposed bulk storage use is allowed under the easement, and the proposed use is a compatible one within this AICUZ. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Chandler Creek Road is a local roadway that serves the industrial sites located within the industrial park. WATER AND SEWER: The site is already connected to City water and sewer. FIRE: The Fire Department will review the site plan during the Development Services Center review process. No comments at this time. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within Strategic Growth Area 11, West Holland Area. The portion of this Strategic Growth Area located north of Dam Neck Road between Rosemont and Holland is recommended for non-residential uses including office, light industrial and limited retail. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the recommended conditions provided below. The proposed Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage is in keeping with the land use planning policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. This site was part of a 33 acre rezoning that was approved by City Council in 2001. This rezoning permitted up to 29 light industrial lots on the property. The location of th~ CUSTOM GRANITE MANI::JFACTURJNG Agenda It~f5 P~g~2 bulk storage behind the building within an industrially zoned commerce park, in an area encumbered by a restrictive AICUZ easement is compatible with adjacent zoning. Category VI landscape screening may be required during site plan review. CONDITIONS 1. The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the submitted "Exhibit of Lot 13 for Custom Granite Mfg.", prepared by Kellam Gerwitz and dated March 7, 2006. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 2. The bulk storage area shall only be used for the storage of materials to the applicant's business. There shall be no storage of inoperable contractor equipment or vehicles on the site. There shall be no storage of motor vehicles. There shall be no sale of or the processing of scrap, salvage or secondhand materials on the site. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant ;s 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. CUSTOM GRANITE MANUFACTURING Agenda Item 5 Page 3 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION \ .- \ :-'\tl1 I 'SI';: \ ~\':l \ I \ -- ,~ ,," I ... ... """'1 <:I' c I gt N '.\ \. "'z \ ~6t;,io.. \\" \.-;j 't\~ . L~ ,,,. .+ \' \.",\~ (l'; 0 /\\ "1 V \-7 ~ "=( \( n In \E: \ ~\~ It. ~~i \C ~\ " E ", _ \'0 - 0 ".,,[t', , \ '-I \ ,^' :\ i. ~ t~\ ~ '1~ '~~'~ \\ \~ \ -t\ ~ \ tl \\ ~ ~ 1~ ~.~'? I~ \ ,,\"....,..., -l~i ... .... tl'V, ~ *,~ ~ \ ....... 1 \ \:. '\ ' 'If ~~ \ 1 __ '-"'" l~~,2 \ ~, ~ ""'\;::~-7-- II \\ ~ ...~(~ '................--- \ ~ ~ ......" Wi ~ " \", ''''''''~ " 'C2. ~ ,,~~ 4( ~tS'S;;s.;'.;--.....: ,......., , \ \ U:r- · . .. " " '" · ": -~, .... e<: ~ g',;;; .e-:;;:-....... "')\\ W l ~ ,; ~ ~ %\1. . ....l "0 ~ ro ~..... 0.. a b~ ~-;::::-g:. '9."""'.... I - -*-~ ~"~'" 'Z. " ~ 0.. 6..'\ 'a '8"'. ~i,"t> \ .....,. y '.S oi.-l~ J:: "'.0. -,'~ '8 ......... -" ~Q," ~\ ZO .cl E f\......... :r.. Q.)u. e._ .... '" .~ 'C...... g,s IU.' > .- ...........'" \ :.- &:. ~- \5,_ ~ \ ;;. '0 ~..... ~ , t' e (3 x. ::) ~ c 2- en 'C. ....... .S ~w, S IDt:;' ~'.~ ~~....~u ""J, '?=. Q.. c...... :.- ~ ~ -..= ci~~ ~ ~.~ ";?;;-';J:, . i~~:. to v.1 s...... ~~........... r- u~ E 26 !:?. \ \ pt.p..N srrE oSEO PROP '"' c '" II w ;;t <..:! '" ~ ..... " PHOTOS OF FRONT AND SIDE OF SITE PHOTO OF REAR OF SITE CUSTOM GRANITE MAt\J;l:JFAQTU Agenda R-5D 2 1 08/24/04 Conditional Rezoning from R-50 to 0-1 Granted & R-50 2 08/10/04 Conditional Rezoning from R-50 to 1-1, Granted 1-2 & P-1 3 11/12/02 Conditional Use Permit (church Granted expansion) 4 07/03/01 Conditional Rezoning from R-50 to 1-1 Granted 1 0/27/98 Reconsideration of Conditions Oenied 09/22/98 Conditional Rezoning from R-50 to 1-1 Granted Conditional Use Permit (processing of Granted woody vegetation) 5 09/14/99 Conditional Rezoning from R-50 to 1-1 Granted CUSTOM GRANITE MANUFACTURING . Agenda Item 5 Page 8 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT NOI1V311ddV !ImIad ffSa 1VNOIJJUN03 I- i~ .. !l? < ",gaS 0: "'li _0 :; '5 g> 01) 1 e_ 00_ $ t ~5~~a.tf ~ .t:.,:t:'ii i~~ - ~"c 2k<= l:._< g~ ~'m ~ W 'j ~j i i~g =tQ5e:g~~'E5'52 "0 C C/).,J:: I: ~ ~ :g'O] I v>~y ~;~~~~E:E~~ i~2=Q F J:l t; .~ ~: i iio~ O-=(,I).c;~~:.t..Sl~ (9 ~ ?r:O ,;v :no . 1 ~~ E .g..~g.~~'4i:: O.!e.!l! e.s; ~=~ & .? ~~.57! j !~ ~ 1; 5 8~~ s ~ ~:~ ~o ,.", &:0-0 "I ~ W ..- m -o..~ d;~ Q2~ - :> 5" }!-..o.co:;;:- .:S Q"'O"'5 d, rr ~;5'; :H<3 ..;;:gt:;:,e~t:~Cl2g~ ~=g~ ~F ~~ ..t~ ::) e.c ~ ~.!i gs,~.~ ~ 7: * ~ 5 ~da-5 .,..,-- ffiE-';~ "E- b!r .'1"f tI) i: .~ g' g ~]~~~ii &;-a ~~ '0;5,; ~ 0 a:=-C ~ ~ S"a ~ i:.. -..tC- :;) 3:-0:> s.w....J: :1(1) ()~~c)'g IV:g Q"tS a; .J (j)o~g lp "''0 C~"'E.Sl-~::'.~..E ~~~:g I~ - Q C ~-=-Z'ls:.\~~ 0 (I):: 0",.1;.. .--': ca0:::: o fI) """ .... rl ~:: qi" ~ &,.2 E......Q...c=Cl)4I)(p.:2.~ 0:..> 8...'2 ..e (,I]~OQ . j c::ce'c<<)..c:;'CE~> C_Q,lQ. is '" .: .~ C .i!l :g.-~"~~ ZJ ~2.~ ~1~ :gg;e~tt\ iI '1 ~eCfJ __515 (l) ,E~~ 1,; ~-e~,~o~i ~ o~ €~g~E ~ ~~2 ]-"'-"~c_.,," ~ "'''' =~=S.s .s g>~.:;..J o.Sl a.o <.J is- O::g'~ "- 0" S ~ ~:; ~ : jg , jig,.; i~ ~ ~~~.gE~~-g ECog~ f qJ c:'" II) (,O /! O=:O at'c ~ (I} U) S -\00 flS -so~(g~ ln~~~ ; ~~ei; ~~~ ~ ~(~ 0 y ~ a ~ ~Q.-i.s j l? <~~i~ - ~ g<'>! ~~e-0 :?;~ 5 0 Q.2:!"~ -8~>-~ ! ~ ~." eN ~l~~:8~~ 53,g ~ , 5~'~ ~ cu'O"'* ~~';ai~ .1 it 3!'~ q,-8 s,g.S;~o';; ~E= ~fJ) B51~2' t '0 ~ill= 0~o.."'-Q)gom" -....,1' ~K~~ j!lO,so Zo;:C"8E~ 0:;"; - g.g,~~ i::\ \ I ~~~~ i ... '" CJe EO.! :i:..:..og.6O !.. O"C~J: ~.h~ -g~eo~15~eg~:S-= o~ 5.:o-Q 1::*:'" OQ:.QU 5~i~2~~:o(Ui~ !':1, ~'il(i~ ~-...~= [,f~i~ ~~i~ ~:! g,.s~:c i1~2~~ <t'1:J.E:.E o ':::J 12.$ o a-o.l: '" ~g';01 ::. ~ 8.!l . &,,~Ee;:-Q"c'" i:i:iiiE-,c:: .~c 2:1..0.(1)0 ~~~ " .:. ~ 'E &~ .. gj ill!! .. "" ri~i 5l, ' ,.. mQ.5l..2 &~:~'~~s;gl~ ".,~.4, "& _'<:~2: ~~~.~~ .l!!; $ '" 8~E 118 5 E 8.65:5 8.Zu ;1 y:A:-< -oJ ...~ 00 fino. z W ~ W I- ~ Ul hW I~ e.lM '0 I t '" ~ ,i J ~~ ~ i ~ vi I $ ! J f ~ i]L:S W g& "0 VI 1 ~.~ ~.!-a ,dlt~~ 19,9 'S fCi:! ~ ot1 tiE ~~ ~'~3t~..}~ ~; ~:g !! ~~ o ci. e ~ ... j i ~~ !l;~ ~g ~.' F. f::l!t; ti ~ .. ~~ ~ q P'l ~ ~ ~i.~-g~ ~ t ~ :~ ~ ='~~u .. ~ :1, '" .5'.'00 lE 4.;1.-'1' ~r ~j. ~~;~ ~ 1 ~,:~ &.::a~ ~. ::! 8*=2; "'=- ",Cia2 ?i <l ~ ~€ .!?_~Jlc) -1: ~l ~j .~~ cC~1S :SJ.J~l~:E .~S"'li ~. ,HI..o'" "Q."'~" '"-1 I' I ~~ g..~i.e I l-~ ~a:::i'[ I' ~~ =f?, .:= 0...... ~ -0 .. 'is 8. 5 ,~ 5 ~ Cl "" is c; I I ; I I I ) "I .1 S;:i l5 ai '" '" c 'in :> ..0 ~ "" g -= t '>. .8 c E '" ~ E ~ ~o e ,~ .j1 15 ~ .5 !~ '0 al ~e'~ ii .m ii~.5 ~~ ~~ gt:e g~ o~ c.>~~o~\b - ~ !!l~ ,(i..S; c: ~ _~~ 0'5'-3:"'<:: ~ ,C:~~:g;.:: ~:: ~ ~ ~-~~ .g~ 3:~Jij~-gii .!ii oOC:.s~~ I ;,s r:eg.i'i5:!. J ~ ,t ~i ~ Cl:", '" E ...II; '1 ,,;.; :f i- ~ ;i ~ .) ~ 'f ~ ~ :.1 O-Eo ctlc :l" t'J.g c:"'o;c.o ~fi~~~ ~lit!: ~ J ~ :.. I ~~~&{t ~iii ~ ~E e:! ;., -~ .; .~~ -SQ~:0 -j ~ ~g ! e-~& $2 ~, h( ;1 ~;:'" ~Q.o't;j;!a "'"i_ ~O,l g::;.$ :je (S;.~~ ici C .Q E is e- o " .. ... ~c !!!S2 ~~ ~a ~o 0"0 ""0 EE 0.5 ",a -So _ u .- " ~<E '" '" "" ~~ ~"5 j~ uo ~ ~ B ~ ,~ ;i' !~ '~ o NOIlVJI1ddV lImIHd HSn 1VNOI!IUNOJ CUSTOM GRANITE MANUFACTURING Agenda ItemS Page 9 Item #5 Custom Granite Manufacturing Co. Conditional Use Permit 3488 Chandler Creek Road District 3 Rose Hall June 14,2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next item is agenda Item #5, Custom Granite Manufacturing Co. This is for a Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage on property located at 3488 Chandler Creek Road, and this is in the Rose Hall District. Is there arepresentative from Custom Granite Manufacturing? Is there any opposition to this application? Therefore, we will have Gene Crabtree explain this one. = Eugene Crabtree: This is a business, and what they do is manufacture countertops out of granite and marble for homes and businesses. The storage of the stone countertops is located outside of the building, off to the side of the building. There is a deed restriction in this area where this business is located. It says, "Any bulk storage outside has to be hidden from the street and not viewed from the street." Therefore, they have agreed to move their bulk storage behind the building and to put it behind the fence. Have all the stone slabs out of sight. This business is also in the AICUZ Zone of 65 to 70 decibels and this is a use that is fitting for that particular noise zone. Therefore, it does meet with the standards of the Department of Defense for that. Because of these reasons, we have agreed to put it on the consent agenda. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion for approval of consent agenda item #5. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor to approve the consent agenda item #5.. Do I have a second? A second by Kathy Katsias. Is there any discussion? 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 WALLER AYE Item #5 Custom Granite Manufacturing Co. Page 2 WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item #5. = CUP for Bulk Storage & Automotive Repair Facility I~l 0" CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM:. Everette L. Brown - Conditional Use Permit (bulk storage and motor vehicle repair), 1305 and 1309 Virginia Beach Boulevard (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Background: Application of Everette L. Brown for a Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage and automotive repair facility on property located at 1305 and 1309 Virginia Beach Boulevard (GPIN 2417353615). DISTRICT 6 - BEACH . Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of the site for a bulk storage facility and an automotive repair facility. The submitted site plan depicts a 2,400 square foot office I auto repair building at the front of the site and a 10,000 square foot storage building at the rear of the site. The plan also depicts a six-foot high wooden fence with Category VI screening around the area to be used for bulk storage. The proposed building in the rear of the site will be metal sided with block trim. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide staff with an elevation drawing of the building proposed for the front of the site. The applicant has provided that drawing, and it is included in the attached staff repot. The .proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area, and with the surrounding uses. The request conforms to the list of uses compatible for an AICUZ of Greater Than 75dB Ldn and Accident Potential Zone I (APZ-I). The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for the area, the use is compatible with surrounding uses, and there was no opposition. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: Everette L. Brown Page 2 of 3 1. The applicant shall meet all of the conditions attached to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board variance approval dated February 24, 2003. 2. The development of the site shall conform to the submitted site plan entitled "Dukes Lane Office / Storage", prepared by Mel Smith and Associates, and dated 6/1/05. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. 3. The applicant shall submit the final building elevations to staff for review and approval during detailed site plan review. The design of the rear building shall substantially adhere to the building photographs in the file. The design of the building fronting on Virginia Beach Boulevard shall substantially adhere to the submitted elevation drawings. Said photographs and elevation drawings have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. The building colors shall be limited to earth tone colors. 4. The applicant shall provide sound attenuation measures in the buildings as required by the Uniform Virginia Statewide Building Code. 5. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan for review and approval by City staff. All lighting fixtures shall be designed to prevent any direct reflection and / or glare toward adjacent uses and city streets. Lighting shall be directed at the ground and not out horizontally or toward the sky. 6. The applicant shall submit a site plan depicting the location of the bulk storage area for review and approval. Bulk storage shall be limited to recreational vehicles (campers, boats, boat trailers, jet skis and trailers), and construction equipment and vehicles. Vehicles, trailers, and equipment shall be stored within the designated areas. There shall be no storage of inoperative, junked, and or wrecked vehicles, and no storage of construction materials and or debris. 7. All motor vehicle repairs shall be performed within the buildings. There shall be no storage of inoperative, junked, and or wrecked vehicles outside of the buildings. Storage of parts and or tires shall be within the buildings. 8. The applicant shall remove all inoperative, junked and or wrecked vehicles, construction equipment and vehicles, and junk and debris from the site within 60 days of approval of this request by the Virginia Beach City Council. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Everette L. Brown Page 3 of 3 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: ~ K .~~ ry~~ ~ EVERETTE L. BROWN Agenda Item 11 June 14, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Bulk Storage and an Automotive Repair Facility ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located 1305/1309 Virginia Beach Boulevard GPIN: 24173536150000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 6 - BEACH SITE SIZE: 215,495.71 square feet (4.95 acres) The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of the site for bulk storage and an automotive repair facility. The submitted site plan depicts a 2,400 square foot building, currently designated as an office, and 12 parking spaces at the front of the site, and a 10,000 square foot storage building at the rear of the site. A six-foot wooden fence with Category VI screening is depicted enclosing the area to be used for bulk storage. The proposed buildings are to be metal sided with block trim. The applicant submitted a brochure from "PowerBilt Building Systems, Inc." and indicates this will be the type of building constructed on the site. SUMMARY OF REQUEST LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped vacant site SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: · Virginia Beach Boulevard · Woods and marsh lands /1-1 Light Industrial and B-2 Business · Woods and marsh lands /1-1 Light Industrial and B-2 Business · Automobile service facility and single-family dwellings / B-2 Business and R-5S Residential NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is located within the Resource Protection Area of the EVERETTE L. .BROWN Agenda Item t 1. Pag~ 1 CULTURAL FEATURES: Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. The applicant received approval from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board on February 24, 2003. The following conditions are attached to the approval: 1. A preconstruction meeting shall be convened with Civil Inspectors prior to any land disturbance, inclusive of demolition. 2. Dual 36-inch erosion and sedimentation control measures (silt fences) shall be installed prior to any land disturbance and shall remain in place until such time as vegetative cover is established. Additionally, a heavy-duty construction fence, acceptable to Civil Inspections shall be installed along the aforementioned E & S controls and shall be maintained during all phases of construction. 3. Construction limits shall lie a maximum of 10-feet seaward of improvements. 4. A minimum 15-foot pervious area shall be maintained between the top of bank and the #57 washed aggregate of the open display / storage area. 5. The construction access way shall be noted on the site plan, as well as the stockpile staging area. 6. All stormwater from all impervious cover shall be conveyed to structural stormwater management facilities. 7. ** As offered by the applicant, payment shall be made to the Lynnhaven Oyster Heritage Program prior to or concurrent with site plan approval. Payment shall be in the amount of $1,443.00 and is based on 25% of the proposed impervious cover located within the RPA butter, exclusive of the gravel area. Said payment shall provide for the equivalent of an approximate 1,575 sq. ft., 12-inch deep oyster shell plant within the Lynnhaven River Basin. 8. Tree compensation shall be at a 3:1 ratio. 9. The proposed gravel area shall be constructed of #57 washed aggregate. 10. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, Development Services Center for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Greater than 75 dB Ldn and an Accident Potential Zone I (APZ-I) surrounding NAS Oceana. There is a restrictive covenant and easement on this property that is owned by the United States Department of the Navy. The proposed use is compatible to this AICUZ. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Virginia Beach Boulevard in front of this request is a minor urban arterial. There are currently no Capital Improvement Program projects scheduled for this section of Virginia Beach Boulevard. EVERETTE L. BROWN Agenda Item. t 1. P~ge2 The Master Transportation Plan depicts Virginia Beach Boulevard as a 100-foot divided right of way with a bike path. An adequate dedication or reservation of property along Virginia Beach Boulevard may be required during detailed site plan review. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Virginia Beach 14,401 ADT 1 22,800 ADT Existing Land Use <!-O Boulevard ADT Proposed Land Use 3 - 60 ADT Average Dally Trips 2 as defined by undeveloped property 3 as defined by 3,000 sq. ft. automobile service facility and 10,000 sq. ft. of warehousing WATER: This site must connect to City water. There are two 12-inch water mains in Virginia Beach Boulevard fronting the site. A four-inch water main exists within a public utility easement running along the southern boundary of the site. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station 112 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an 8-inch sanitary sewer main and a 20-inch sewer force main in Virginia Beach Boulevard fronting the site. There is an 8-inch sanitary sewer main within a public utility easement running along the southern boundary of the site. HRSD: There is a 42-inch HRSD force main south of the property extending north through the center of the property crossing Virginia Beach Boulevard. FIRE: A certificate of occupancy must be obtained from the Building Code Official before occupancy of the site. Fire code permits may be required. Hazardous, flammable and combustible materials used, stored or sold on site must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code and NFP A requirements. The Fire Marshall must approve security for ingress and egress so that Fire Department access is not obstructed. Gated sites must provide for Fire Department access by using the Knox or Supra key system. Electrically operated gates must have a failsafe operation in the event of a power failure. Portable or auxiliary power supplies cannot be allowed on the site for tenant uses. A fire hydrant is required within 400-feet of a commercial structure. The minimum fire lane width must be 20- feet. If a gravel surface is approved for parking or storage of vehicles, all spills of petroleum products and vehicle fluids must be immediately removed and properly dispersed of to prevent violations of the Fire Code and Environmental ordinances. SCHOOLS: School population is not affected by the request. EVERETTE L. BROWN A.genda IteP1t1 Pag~,S The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as being within the Primary Residential Area. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the primacy of preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods in the Primary Residential Area. Limited commercial or institutional activities providing desired goods or services to residential neighborhoods may be considered acceptable uses on the edge of established neighborhoods provided effective measures are taken to ensure compatibility and non-proliferation of such activities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff recommends approval of this request with conditions recommended by staff. The recommended conditions are provided below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area, and with the surrounding uses. The request conforms to the permitted land uses located within the AICUZ of Greater than 75dB Ldn and Accident Potential Zone I (APZ-I) surrounding NAS Oceana. CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall meet all of the conditions attached to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board variance approval dated February 24, 2003. 2. The development of the site shall conform to the submitted site plan entitled "Dukes Lane Office / Storage", prepared by Mel Smith and Associates, and dated 6/1/05. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. 3. The applicant shall submit the building elevations (or kit) to staff for review and approval during detailed site plan review. The elevations shall substantially adhere to the building photographs in the file. Said photographs and kit package have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. The building colors shall be limited to earth tone colors. 4. The applicant shall provide sound attenuation measures in the buildings as required by the Uniform Virginia Statewide Building Code. 5. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan for review and approval by City staff. All lighting fixtures shall be designed to prevent any direct reflection and / or glare toward adjacent uses and city streets. Lighting shall be directed at the ground and not out horizontally or toward the sky. 6. The applicant shall submit a site plan depicting the location of the bulk storage area for review and approval. Bulk storage shall be limited to recreational vehicles (campers, boats, boat trailers, jet skis and trailers), and construction equipment and vehicles. Vehicles, trailers, and equipment shall be stored within the designated areas. There shall be no storage of inoperative, junked, and or wrecked vehicles, and no storage of construction materials and or debris. 7. All motor vehicle repairs shall be performed within the buildings. There shall be no storage qf EVERETTE L. BROWN Agenda Item 11 Page4 inoperative, junked, and or wrecked vehicles outside of the buildings. Storage of parts and or tires shall be within the buildings. 8. The applicant shall remove all inoperative, junked and or wrecked vehicles, construction equipment and vehicles, and junk and debris from the site within 60 days of approval of this request by the Virginia Beach City Council. 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. EVERETTE L BROWN Agenda Item 11 .Pa.ge.5 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION PROPOSED SITE PLAN GP'N 2'::l/,.. ..'$:$""':;01-'2 '" i,.,~: r SEcnow 6-8 CPi~~2.t; '( - :%~- OS.1~1 :Oi-"'ih :J-,q7,~'3~<-:.:z;% ~C"" 9 ,~,;,;,.~,~ 24,:; ":' - JJ-:,f,';! Sf- 't 2':! '.~, )>:~ - ~6'-7 LO: "l 6' WOOO f'RtVACY FENCE CA'tiCQfY l8 l.ANOSCAPING ,.>.' ' 2CNfNC P-SS t4'\"'<~;,~-'C74.~ l, I; ~,Qt e; UI'.~Mlv!;: (AS'PIW.T PW1) $;; .. ~;~* 24~j.'.- 3S-,:,7~ . ...... .~. ",,"-1' .'" ~ c,~;~ .2':;'~ "t''''''~::_Q='"::'' .. 7 .. U- Nl ..Dr .: C.Ot:A~'l~ & tom >~!Jlft II. ,!t!"<\:f';;..~~ Not tt '3; ,Zf'ro :,:::- .tl,f.;'~ 5:!~f" #l.~~f:,f~!;; P~:"- ~,:,. :;~ '4 ~,:...".,c- -7~ ~,,~___ '- ,,, I i ~ l PROPOSED BUilDING ELEVATION (FRONT BUilDING) 33/-1&~l/16' SIDE ELEVATION 33'-10 1116' FRONT ElEV A nON PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION (REAR BUILDING) 0"" "'<,' >. ',(;:~,"::,:--::;,:;, ;;;"", EVEREfXliLBRctVN '~enda It 11 ZONING HISTORY Map L-7 MOD Not to SCClle ~ 11 ~L 000 OOll a ~ \ I .~ 100/ llt PAA lOCI A-12 lu>i-J =-n A:~~;DJ lb ~ ii~~p B4 [j ;J""V'"lllIr ~o~r..2$f" ~-~ ~-:a L-.]JI' PAR :JliT '7 a.~ ~2 !J<' ~ 040 L....J lOP ----m:r ~ n~ J~ ~~ -Qs- ----on ~ ~ Everette Brown ~~ DOC -2 DO' I OOB /~ c ;J 1)00 I A B-2 ~~) L I,~~ -.J,r1. n l ~O CJ'uU 1\ L~~ o c::=Jc::J ~ _ t::::; B-2 l/r I =o( non ~ I VA RHACH B'- B ~2 -......: OlG o~ .701 Ius:.- :J IiiiI all n 00 00 D" L ~12 D 021 -ell tlz1 "0 !1> ~. ~ 1211 ~G ~< 011 b~ 2~ 0 I. ~ U)ll 011 139 0 " ~2 Il21l !11 J'~26 0" ~ ILJ. U 04B D ~ ~ lil'l I V u... 01 - - 00 I-I 2 alA O~ 00 ~y 001 00 1 00 J, l I-I 001 020 02'3 00'_ DO! I-21 001 OEA I--- CUP for Bulk Storage & Automotive Repair Facility 1. 11/24/92 Enlargement of a nonconforming use 12/12/00 Rezoning (1-1 Light Industrial to Conditional 1-2 Heavy Industrial) and Conditional Use Permit (Storage and Processin of salva e, scra and 'unk automobiles 2. 8/8/00 Conditional Use Permit Fiber 0 tics transmission facili Approved Approved EVERETTE L. BRaWN Agenda Iterrl 11 Page 10 'I ~j I wI , ~I il ~i I':.' \t) q Iw' :a: ;,j \t) io' ..I' U iJ) o g~ ff~ iJ iii -:!;:: .r;..;-a ?. ;~ ~o32 ^~ ~: ~j_z ~ ~.~ r\ ~ 1! ~ ~,~ en c.j::; iE ''\ w;::2~ '"", ~:'g5 " U)oo'~B :s: ~~.i~4, ~, f;i E' 0 ~ -.l ~.~j~ "~ ~'g.~~ \ , o~ ili5 ;;.... ~.~ ~,~ '&~(\, Q::: --.;;:: 't':~"" v~ < -: g qj ~ ~. ~! (> :> 0 <:; 1(" 12~'~'~ ~: ~8.g; ~ gE~a; ~ C"Q.~= t:,' g-g~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ] ~:: "~ ~ ;"~~~1 u;,s~~ .; :.:; .e <, :Jl '" aJt_ e _ c' eo_ €'EM ~ ~] -00 E~E Kf.() e ~~E ~&~ ~~.o ~ ~<e .2.:; g ~ ~- .-J ff? Q~~ ~fj,!, 1:: Q,. 10 ~,~~ !;..,,> o.i<I'J ":;::.. -ttil ~ ~~g..: '" 0"-0 1;~~;':; e g e-t\; ;~~ 8: E ~.... :;!';:: 1,g t~g8 ~g=~ ?"5 ~...: !llC~b 9-~~~ - l:;;;; Q::: e 2---- It> gg:E DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 00 ~ ~ -57'- <"Z E ~~~;->: Q:l' '" - ,0 ~ _ -: ~"O.8,~ a~ ~ .fr< _~""lJ.), -'=co~,;';: S?:g ;,.~~~ g 0 ~ 5%1 -g;,~'i5~;"~~:ss ,g:~5 ~ ": ~;= (: .=.~ 2 E ~ ~ g g ~ € i ~ ~ ~o .g~~:E2~;~~~:g ~.~ €[ ~ ~ ~ 7: e ~ g ::i~5J:~!.,zi;;~ :; '~ ~ :~ ~, -g ! .~ :; -5 ,~ ~€<t=~<3~::'~"'!; e~i~';;j1P'~O~'~ .E C,!; % g (':Jii-g~~ ~ .~g~~~~~~~~o ~~-e~~c~~~~Q ,g ~! 7: ~ ~ ~ '5> :5.~ g .:s; "'0.-.0 c:- C >-<1>-' c;.ctl- iQS,g';::'SQ,~ ;':'j~ ,s;:;,~ ~~ ~=;; .~ ':5 :5 6 ~ 0 8~ 5 ~ :i.9-u; ~9 2 eo Q q.;~ t$~ E= ~-= 5: c: \o.,.~:n : ;;, :! E .8 ~ ~ o.~ ~ ::~ S'~.5'E"5'E &.E.::: ""'(.~ ~.!:.s.8 ~ E ! :~ 0 3 ~~ .J:Ie'5idooa"'~9'S! 'i~m'O~Q;.I2ee!'!;_ ~~~~~~~::~a~ .;. tn' .0 tr.- :: .,.. _ '-: J:. (:) :0 -. <3' Q')'~%'8 i~=_:~ ,~ ~~Ega;;:;~~i: igec:~-g!!Q~Q itt8c~5~g~o~t5 '"' oE",_",~Q,,QO ~~'E ~..o '5 S' l.J VI O""!'::; ~.?: ~ ~. "'0 f"'"' JZ.c ~jw~ ..;; li V; c.. C".< c... 01: ,- :c 0. q:. ,=:: 1'.13 "'0 -= !t~~ ~:Psii 'a;s~-' 'E~--:.9 0"", _ ... u 8..22 ~-.2a ~g~'~$i .fE g.g Q' <> ,!:? ,",0 '" :;~E~~ ~=:: ~~ - oi3S;"" ;0:;. ~ .2. -: -;.~.:;1 ~~ - 0 '0'.: >- "";J ~: ~ g .~ ':: 5 s~.:< ," _ ' _. ~ re: CJ-._ ~ ,"'1 'r"i I <; <:.t.: 0.13 . ~\.",. ~8..ca~ . ,,-*~ I ::>.8_" "\t :.,\,_ %1S~!~ ,'~\ 'j: t 2=:-'5= ~"',,::\~, ~~~j ~ a~ ~J I' ... ~ "" c.S ~''''" ,j~. ~ "'-5 o'E.~~;;,,:;.;, ffi ~ ~ s, ~ ''0:~ f''0~ t' o=.~.~;s \};(" '\.I::: .. ~\ I LJ :; :......'~ '\' NOUVJnddV lIMIHd HSIl1VNOUlaNO t":;' ~ ~ I- Z LrJ :I LrJ I- < l- ll) 1LI Q: :l Ul o ..I ~ .s '" 8- c ~ ~ :;:j ~ ~ c '" o :t; ,,; ~ W"? c ~ ~ -;; 8E c c5 ?'B (1)- ~~ oci c <)'j 1-... ;2;j 2~ ;~ < ~ >-<.,:: ~ € ~* ~ .Q.. a.;; ~~ Q. >~ <~~~~ ---.... ~~:E:i ;.$ ~ ~ ~Q - :~2~ "i 3ii 2gt"Jp ~~~~ ... C !& .,z ,... r::...; (:I. 1;;:;; ~ =0- ~ $ ., ., '" c i .z -g ~ ~"8 tr, ~" 0'" -?;- ~ g ~ ~ ;""1_ .g~ 'fl.c:- ~~ ~:!. :g i'C.=: .r:.c. _ t>. 1') (!:. ~o ~:; ~.c ~j ~t .50 ~~ ~~ :-.l <; .n ., '" " '<:3 " J:l ~ Q ~ ;.. Q ~ ~: E vj "~,: 0 Ii ":t ~ ~.~ 15 ~ ~,~ -a ;~~ ~ o~ 0-, g '" -'~E E~ g~-oH'8 Q~.g:~;~ a:: ",'5i 2 ="" ~'i~2S~ ~~~-5-g~ Occ.o~.z .~~g~~~ -ffi ~"2 E';; ~ Q.......cq....,.... o;-e-:H :fi8..~, ~~ ~co~~ _.g,~ ~ ~ "~~ g~~ :r35S€ :;~22. ~:~a.__~ ;~~~~ -0:""'_'0 !!f~~ -~ E ~ '" '" '" c, ~ 'g ~ ::~ ~ ~ c ~ -?;-a -c:; ~l "~.:: u, .g~ ~~ gz ~! ..:; '" ~ Eo. ;:.... '" -- ~ \t,- '" - '1". ~ ~ f? ~E :~ -- - ""'..~ -....' I '. i1 j 1 ~ g- "?;."; ~ 5? " :;;; ~ I! Ii ~ J: .!: f I 1i 1! f ~ n ~ i' f! ;; '~ " , t, l! ~: i - t ; t I f t , I. ~ f i' i - t f 1 Q. ~ ;; " i g ~ '" a. (; '-' '" to- ~s O'J~ ;: 'E c '" ,g~ ~"C 2i"2 lV, E -=g, '; 8 ;; ,.f;, i: .;;e;:;; go G~ bi ~ o ~ c _.. 9- 7i: N ~') ~ ~c ;; ,~ ~~ ~ t;;:;, :~ _0 ~e ~ ~ E t~ _;~ c ~ EVERETTE L BROWN Agenda Iterm:>11 Page 11 Item # 11 Everette L. Brown Conditional Use Permit 1305 and 1309 Virginia Beach Boulevard District 6 Beach June 14,2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next application is Item #11, Everette L. Brown. It is for a Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage and automotive repair facility on property located at 1305 & 1309 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Beach District. We1come sir. Please state your name. Everette Brown: Everette Brown. Janice Anderson: Mr. Brown, this use permit has eight conditions. Have you reviewed those and are they acceptable? Everette Brown: Yes. = Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Is there any opposition to this application? We're going to have Mr. Waller review it for us. Thank you Mr. Brown. John Waller: The request is for a Conditional Use Permit for a bulk storage and automotive repair facility. The property is located in the 1300 block of Virginia Beach Boulevard. It is zoned B-2 and I-I. He has received approval from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Board, and the staff also recommends approval of this request with the eight conditions. One of the most important, I think, is the front elevation of the building is going to be facing the street. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for the area and with the surrounding uses. The request conforms to the committed uses located within the AICUZ Greater than 75 decibels and the APZ-l from Oceana. The staff does recommend it, and we recommend approval. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Waller. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion for approval of consent agenda item # 11. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor to approve the consent agenda item #11. Do I have a second? A second by Kathy Katsias. Is there any discussion? AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE Item #11 Everette L. Brown Page 2 CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIV AS AYE] RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item #11. = CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Robert D. Voogt - Conditional Use Permit (facility for the disabled), 1851 and 1853 Old Donation Parkway (DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHAVEN) MEETING DATE: July 18, 2006 . Background: Application of Robert D. Voogt for a Conditional Use Permit for a facility for the disabled on property located at 1851 and 1853 Old Donation Parkway (GPINs 24084334511851; 24084334511853). DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHAVEN . Considerations: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for a convalescent/medical facility to allow development of the site for the care of patients with serious cognitive impairments, such as those with Alzheimer's disease. The facility will provide a safe and secure environment for patients who cannot recognize danger or provide for their own safety or welfare. The facility will accommodate 40 to 48 patients at anyone time. The number of permanent staff will be approximately 40. The facility will operate at all hours of the day, every day of the year. The physical changes to the site necessary to accommodate the proposed use consist of the demolition of the existing office building, removal of the existing parking areas, and the construction of a new one-story building and associated parking areas. The building will be constructed to meet Institutional Use Group requirements under the Building Code. The facility is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, which emphasizes medical support uses in this area. The applicant is proposing an attractive, low- scale, and low-intensity project, replacing the more intense office use currently on the site. Moreover, the new facility has been designed with a residential character and reduces existing incompatibilities with the adjacent residential area by introducing a landscape buffer that currently does not exist. The site is currently zoned 0-2 Office District and could actually be developed with additional office buildings by-right in the same location that the new facility is shown and at a greater height. The plan as submitted, as noted earlier in this report, is deficient in regard to the lot coverage requirement of the 0-2 Office District. The lot coverage as depicted on the plan is at 32 percent (the maximum allowed is 25 percent). Staff concludes, however, that the increase is primarily offset by the fact that the Robert D. Voogt Page 2 of 3 proposal results in an increase of open space beyond that currently on the site, with a corresponding decrease in the percentage of the lot covered by impervious parking. Approximately 46 percent of the site will be in open space with the submitted proposal. The percentage of the site covered by parking will fall from the current 47.8 percent to the proposed 21.7 percent. Staff, therefore concludes that both of these deficiencies are adequately offset by the characteristics of the plan as noted above and through the conditions below. Section 221 (i) of the City Zoning Ordinance allows the City Council to approve a use permit with such deficiencies if it is determined that the deficiencies are offset by the proposal or by attached conditions that ensure the proposal is compatible to the surrounding area. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they felt that is an appropriate use for the site, the submitted site plan is designed in a way that is compatible to the adjacent residential area, and there was no opposition. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed substantially as shown on the plan entitled "Old Donation Associates, 48 Bed Convalescent Center," dated Monday, May 1,2006, and Revised June 8,2006, except as modified by the conditions below, and to include the deficiencies in dimensional requirements depicted on the plan. The center shall not exceed 48 patient beds. 2. The building shall be constructed in the style, height, and configuration, and with the materials and colors as shown, substantially as depicted on the drawing entitled "Old Donation Associates, LLC, 48 Bed Convalescent Center," dated Thursday, May 4,2006. 3. The middle access point on Old Donation Parkway as shown on the plan specified in Condition 1 shall be designed during detailed site plan review to allow only a right-turn-in. 4, The required Category 4 landscape buffer depicted on the plan specified in Condition 1 shall only consist of evergreen trees providing a dense screen. Shrubs may be planted as a supplement to the evergreen trees but not in lieu of the trees. 5. The monument style sign shown on the site plan specified in Condition 1 shall not exceed eight feet in height and shall be entirely constructed of or have a base of brick matching the building. Any such base shall have a minimum height equal to 25 percent of the total height of the Robert D. Voogt Page 3 of 3 sign. 6. In addition to the standpipe system depicted on the site plan specified in Condition 1, the facility shall have a fire suppression / sprinkler system as required for all Institutional uses under the Building Code. 7. There shall be no heating, ventilation, or air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical equipment located on the side of the building adjacent to the residential lots to the south. 8. A lighting plan showing all new external lighting fixtures proposed shall be submitted for review with the detailed site plan. 9. Construction material deliveries shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and construction activities shall not commence until 7:00 a.m. on Monday through Friday and until 8:00 a.m. on Saturday. 10. The center shall only treat patients with cognitive impairment, such as Alzheimer's Disease, and shall not admit patients seeking treatment for drug or alcohol addiction. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. ~c7 ~ Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department CltyManage~ k~~ ROBERT VOOGT Agenda Item 19 June 14, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Stephen J. White REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a convalescent/medical facility (sanatorium) ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 1853 Old Donation Parkway GPIN: 24084334511853 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 5 - L YNNHAVEN SITE SIZE: 2.79 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for a convalescent/medical facility to allow development of the site for the care of patients with serious cognitive impairments, such as those with Alzheimer's disease. The facility will provide a safe and secure environment for patients who cannot recognize danger or provide for their own safety or welfare. The facility will accommodate 40 to 48 patients at anyone time. The number of permanent staff will be approximately 40. The facility will operate at all hours of the day, every day of the year. The physical changes to the site necessary to accommodate the proposed use consist of the demolition of the existing office building on the site, removal of the existing parking areas, and the construction of a new one-story building and associated parking areas. The new building (38,350 sf) will include a two- story "commons and support" component (6,000 sf) located in the front and center of the building, with a large patio area adjacent to Old Donation Parkway. The one-story portions of the building (32,350 sf) will connect to and extend outward from this "commons and support" area. There will be four such 'wings,' each accommodating 12 bedrooms. Behind and between each of these wings will be patios, lawns, and landscaped areas. A walkway will run behind the building, connecting each of the patio areas and the parking areas on the site. A monument-style sign is shown on the site plan at the east end of the site. A condition for attachment to the use permit has been recommended at the end of the report regarding the height and building materials for the sign. Parking areas are shown in each of the three angles of this triangular site, providing access from the western, eastern, and southern sides of the building. The parking area shown on the western corner is proposed future parking, as it is the desire of the applicant to maintain this are as open green space. Even without this parking, the parking as shown on the proposed plan meets and exceeds the . ROBERT D. VOQGT Agendalterm 19 . Page 1 requirement of the zoning ordinance for this use. The primary access to the facility from Old Donation Parkway will be at the easternmost point of the site, where two access points are proposed. One of these access points provides a full right and left turn into and out of the site and the other allows only a right- turn into the site. There are no median breaks at either point. Thus, there are no concerns regarding vehicles moving in conflicting ways to cross over both eastbound lanes, which would be possible since these access points are so close together. Vehicles traveling westbound on Old Donation Parkway that are attempting to access the proposed facility will be able to do so at the existing median break located opposite the proposed westernmost access point (this access corresponds to the location of the existing access to the site). Any such vehicle can make a V-turn at the median break and turn right into the central access point to reach the main entrance to the building. The building elevations submitted with the application depict a traditional-style building with a gable-style roof system. The exterior facades of the building will be covered with brick in "Red Colonial" color. The gables of the roof and the exterior front fa9ade of the "commons and support" building will be covered with white lap siding. The primary roof material will be asphalt shingles in two different colors, charcoal grey and green. The color used for the roof will be dependent on the function of that portion of the building (commons area versus bedrooms). Standing seam metal roofs in a_"weathered copper" color cover the entrance features. The gable roofs are punctuated with dormers covered by standing seam metal roofs in a natural metal color. The total height of the building at its highest point is 43 feet and 5 inches; maximum height in the 0-2 Office District is 75 feet. The proposed site layout fails to meet one of the dimensional requirements of the 0-2 Office District, as the lot coverage as depicted on the plan is at 32 percent (the maximum allowed is 25 percent). This deviation is discussed further in the Evaluation and Recommendation section of this report. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped vacant site SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: . Old Donation Parkway · Single-family Residential / R-10 Residential District · City fire station / R-10 Residential District · Single-family Residential / R-10 Residential District · Convalescent center and medical facility / 0-2 Office District . Old Donation Parkway · Single-family Residential / R~1 0 Residential District South: East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The majority of the site is currently impervious surface, consisting of either building or parking areas. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The United States Navy has reviewed the request and notes that the proposed use is conditionally compatible, subject to noise level reduction as specified by the applicable City ordinances and the Building Code. ROBERT D. VOQGT Agenda Iteri"l19 Pag~ .2 Stephen J. White From: Firenze, Raymond E CIV NAS Oceana VA [raymond.firenze@navy.mil] Sent: Friday, January 20,20068:27 AM To: Stephen J. White Subject: Dr. Voogt Sanatorium Stephen, We have received and reviewed the Conditional Use Permit Application for a sanatorium at 1853 Old Donation Parkway submitted by Dr. Robert Voogt. The site is located in the 70-75 decibel (dB) noise zone and considered conditionally compatible. Applicant is to ensure compliance with noise level reduction features as set forth in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. If you have any questions please call. Thanks and have a good day. Ray Firenze Community Planning Liaison Officer Naval Air Station Oceana Phone: (757) 433-3158 Fax: (757) 433-2380 IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Old Donation Parkway at this location is considered a four-lane divided collector. It is not shown on the Master Transportation Plan. There is no project in the CIP for improvements to the roadway. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Old Donation 6,909 ADT 1 13,100 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use"- Parkway Service "C") - 20,700 ADT 759 ADT 1 (Level of Service "0") Proposed Land Use 3 - 233 Average Dally Trips 2as defined by 21 ,000 sf medical office 3 as defined by 38,350 convalescent center WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is an 8 inch City water line in Old Donation Parkway and a 12 inch line on the opposite of Old Donation Parkway. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. There is a 12 inch sanitary sewer force main on the opposite side of Old Donation Parkway. ROBERT D.. VOOGT Agenda Item 19 Page. 3 EMERGENCY SERVICES: The applicant has met with the Fire Marshall regarding the proposed use. As a result of the meeting with the Fire Marshall, however, the applicant has agreed to a variety of fire safety and fire suppression measures including the use of a sprinkler system in the building and the installation of a Class 1 standpipe system with hose connections remotely located in the three rear entrances to the building. The applicant has shown the standpipe connections on the submitted site plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Primary Residential Area. The site is also located immediately outside of the First Colonial Road Medical Corridor Area. This area includes a variety of medical facilities that provide a wide variety of medical care. Because this area provides such well-established and vital medical services to the community, priority for development should be given to infill or redevelopment proposals that complement these health care activities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff recommends approval of this request with conditions recommended by staff. The recommended conditions are provided below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION The facility is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, which emphasizes medical support uses in this area. The applicant is proposing an attractive, low-scale, and low-intensity project, replacing the more intense office use currently on the site. Moreover, the new facility has been designed with a residential character and reduces existing incompatibilities with the adjacent residential area by introducing a landscape buffer that currently does not exist. The site is currently zoned 0-2 Office District and could actually be developed with additional office buildings by-right in the same location that the new facility is shown and at a greater height. Ample parking is available, and although the use will operate on a 24-hour basis, activity at night will be light. The plan as submitted, as noted earlier in this report, is deficient in regard to the lot coverage requirement of the 0-2 Office District. The lot coverage as depicted on the plan is at 32 percent (the maximum allowed is 25 percent). Staff concludes, however, that the increase is primarily offset by the fact that the proposal results in an increase of open space beyond that currently on the site, with a corresponding decrease in the percentage of the lot covered by impervious parking. Approximately 46 percent of the site will be in open space with the submitted proposal. The percentage of the site covered by parking will fall from the current 47.8 percent to the proposed 21.7 percent. Staff, therefore concludes that both of these deficiencies are adequately offset by the characteristics of the plan as noted above and through the conditions below. Section 221 (i) of the City Zoning Ordinance allows the City Council to approve a use permit with such deficiencies if it is determined that the deficiencies are offset by the proposal or by attached conditions that ensure the proposal is compatible to the surrounding area. The staff, therefore, recommends approval of this use permit with the conditions listed below. ROBERT D.. VO(!)GT AgendaUen'\l19 P~g~4 CONDITIONS 1. The site shall be developed substantially as shown on the plan entitled "Old Donation Associates, 48 Bed Convalescent Center," dated Monday, May 1, 2006, and Revised June 8, 2006, except as modified by the conditions below, and to include the deficiencies in dimensional requirements depicted on the plan. The center shall not exceed 48 patient beds. 2. The building shall be constructed in the style, height, and configuration, and with the materials and colors as shown, substantially as depicted on the drawing entitled "Old Donation Associates, LLC, 48 Bed Convalescent Center," dated Thursday, May 4, 2006. 3. The middle access point on Old Donation Parkway as shown on the plan specified in Condition 1 shall be designed during detailed site plan review to allow only a right-turn-in. 4. The required Category 4 landscape buffer depicted on the plan specified in Condition 1 shall only consist of evergreen trees providing a dense screen. Shrubs may be planted as a supplement to the evergreen trees but not in lieu of the trees. 5. The monument style sign shown on the site plan specified in Condition 1 shall not exceed eight feet in height and shall be entirely constructed of or have a base of brick matching the building. Any such base shall have a minimum height equal to 25 percent of the total height of the sign. 6. In addition to the standpipe system depicted on the site plan specified in Condition 1, the facility shall have a fire suppression / sprinkler system as required for all Institutional uses under the Building Code. 7. There shall be no heating. ventilation, or air conditioning (HV AC) mechanical equipment located on the side of the building adjacent to the residential lots to the south. 8. A lighting plan showing all new external lighting fixtures proposed shall be submitted for review with the detailed site plan. 9. Construction material deliveries shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and construction activities shall not commence until 7:00 a.m. on Monday through Friday and until 8:00 a:m. on Saturday. 10. The center shall only treat patients with cognitive impairment, such as Alzheimer's Disease, and shall not admit patients seeking treatment for drug or alcohol addiction. ROBERT D..V00GT Agenda lten'!i,19 e?g~ 5 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. ROBERT D. VO~GT Agenda JteJ1;'l..t9 PClg~6 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION ~, }> " J] ~ ~ ~ ~~ \Il1 ~ '" ~ \. \\ }, i\ \\ ~ l E)(lSi\NG SItE CONDlilONS " 'i1 1-:11 ~l il.. :; ~(/ lt~~ , ~l s" c ?It ~~~ ~ ~f \~~ '0 ~\\ il41i; ;:f>ll. tt . ~a ~~ <!~ ~~ "., i\j o "%- ....~ ")I' ~. A ~- o -z.. .. f ~ * ~ ~ gi .... e. ~ 0 CO II ~g,=," t.1:l'lJ:O ~~Z* g~_l""" ~... fa ~a~ a! 1 ot,\) i::l.. nHP ';:3 ..0""''' I~ ~ ~~ <'>> 'Cd.. :zO';l;o-h ~ ~ ~~\ ~ ~ e~\ ... it 'lJ::::l!\ \ !"'.~ ~\ g \ rM \ ~ )I' ~ *f' ..z.. )I' ..J:... - s ~ ~ :--J os Ii ""01 ~.' .~.grt "{OJ ~\ i ~ /' 4"/" _{'() ':1 PROPOSED SITE pLAN <IfI'I'!'!' ::s ",i\ ~i\i V:~ ;:::" . '0../'- '^_...--,."..,.,,~,>'::..""~.... ~, , ~ ""'-"- .tti f:~.iil .. l~~f ~~~ ~ 7 ~ ~ 9-" ~. -;z:. ~ 0- ~ o . / " ~'f.< / .. ' /'.... '1t.i~",=''#) -e ~,/ e~~~\i / <(. riS"t;:(SOo / Ob'" ..., '" -:;: 6 ~I.: \i. ". ~t: ~ '6 ~ ~ <.ittt~ J.l~lt p....1 1.1 1\\ .~.i t~ ill n! \ ~~,/t^"" tn-" "'.-..1-.,,/' PROPOSED BUl\.DlNG E\.E" AllON \ .. l. ~~ 11' ~.. ~~ ~1 -r. " j'Ht ~~ ! ..i ~l ;:Jl-!\~ r l~ r 1 \ . \ \ \, \, \ \ \ , \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \, c: \.9 'a \~ g , ~ \~ \ \ \ \ \ '\ \~ I'~ \ ll. j ~ -;'- ~1 ~l 1~ ,,' ~s. 9,~ . .. ~ - \\ \\., \ \ ~\~ .S 'go lJ ~\\ ~ ~ ... ..s ~ J$ If\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, \ \ \ ~ .~ \\ % $ ~ I~ 1 ~ ~. 1 ~ 3t ~~ .,.. C) ~() .~ ~ u C) o u rJ) rJ) ~ C) ~~ ~ ~ .9 0 ~() ~.-o O~ ~d:) O~ i~ ~i ~~ ~! . ~,,~0~;, ~", ZONING HISTORY CUP - Convalescent Home 1 6/8/1981 REZONING from R-5 Residential to 0-1 Office Withdrawn 2 4/25/1982 REZONING from R-5 Residential to 0-1 Office Granted 3 1/9/1984 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (dav care) Granted 4 4/8/1985 REZONING from R-5 Residential to 0-1 Office Denied 5 2/25/1985 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT retirement center} Withdrawn 6 11/9/2004 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT convalescent center} Granted .'......;. ~ ,.~ ,"" ',', ", .," '{-\ ~,,,,, ';.: '",' ' '.<<',.'" ROB~JD:jV f:'.'gendalt . .,.:P~ )- DlSCLOSURE STATEMENT cr"8 i~ !.'! GB'a .~ <a j! fQ'g ,- ~ (,j; >;t;a".l ~',~.~ iI. ~ ~ '$ t.<,. f,f) t:I),~~g UJ_'O~ a:"'-<;: ;:3'>j'" (R15"'~ 5~,i,: ()~-rj) !!:.ge Q ",-..;'~ ..l,s.6fl; ~ il?- o "'~.~ Eli)"E.-- Q ~,e 'c:::,., Q j'-."" ~ <t\5~~'" '/J >~ ~ ~-l~." :; c,.J;', .U1~ ~',-: '2~ .;:!.. ~"" gai ~~ :;71>-$ ~~r~ ~!"'~ oa"s~ 'i/i~ f.1; ;isi... r--~ <1. \! \ g~~ : a ~.<s \~ "'<> >~o :3 c._ l'~~ ~. t;. c: '% t c;: ~ ~ 1.<::0 '" \;$!,~ I ,.... oV' ~t;~- ~ t: - ~ \.ggte j~'~:9 ,=: ;> ~ \,'" ~ : ,@ 8.9 \ ~ ~~ i ; 'a % \'0. ~{,<) r.a ~)!, i, '" i~"'; Ii 0",,0 t~?et:) re1:l a~ ;, ~-.("It iii~~"" \:;:!'- 0 1lI \.Qa,si<. l;0.Jt-go \.f;i~~ t!~ 0 ~ l{tcli. ~ ~ g, 'Il't ,'- -m!' .- \ -~; l~."s ! a~~ oc.;o :;: '100 .._ g.; ~ 0 .g.' E S i":$Bo.t1 g ~ _ .8 .2 ~g 5 :E <t ~"'e~'Q~"'$a~jS g ~ )? 1" ? 'Q ~'" ~ Q ~ '0 :c. ~ ~ ,'~ ;. ~ i> ~~ ~ m li..~~ .~~ ~ '0 ~ ~Q.~ ~ 1 g& .:g ~ ~;.~ ~=5 ~_~!,.'>~-'f,,~;O&:;-;:;':2~ g;f)~~~~'-'~~o'~ ~~::;;:%,Q.~,~~?b~'" ~___u ~,n'~' 'ow:' 0 ~~;;:~~jt-5~~';: ~.r..~,:~.~vf~! ~ l:J~ a; :;:::=. <:;I;;;' .':)-_ e: ~,~ ~;:. ~,~~ s-~:. ~ Cr~' Q ~ E'~~~i"S~~!~:; ~c.,Q:.'()').s <<; c:~ S'O ~ 0 ~~j~t.e~"%SG; a!!~:;';o,~".!~~<';; -.:;.$.:;::;:: 1t:~$Qq;;--3 ~, ,( '0 -;: ._' 1: fA ~>- 41- 1)~~o1:~.g~%~% ..,,,,="i_._,,,eE,s:;; ~~.s~i~Q81l}~! :!l~! gOc,,~ ~.~QOz ~g~2~ <:Ss::>g.... 8.E~_'" '1J\"'o. j;' ",~<:>ll;" :)"i.'- e ~,o"5r.fJ .0.....:;;"'0 '" 0>'" 'i~~oa \1\E~2~- ~~t::$ ~$We::O ",,'Q'tC: :fOe.:>"''';;; ="17t-O~ _c<~o!' <.0"" "'.c""_,,,N . a"'.Jt- ,s_a"cN ~. .:,.~-.."i '" ~ ~c 5<.. '" "" ffi- -g,.:)lh~C> ~8 6 }l~ a!~ f .a ~ ~ .;:;: ., 9- ~~ '" s .::; ;? '" ~ ~ g> Ul 0, '"0 .S: ~ ~~ 1i;eE c::,% ~ $ .'" 0' ~,.Q _,~ _0 ; -~ o~..:.. t)Q..i.J, tGtS 'Sc:iS o~< 2a;)1 ~ .8 ^~o e ~ i'>~ (tj:~..... ~: ~.~gt ;; ~ wi, ~._.::. ;: ~-~~-~ ._e:g,~ ,%~~~ $::~~ ;~$~ .~~'~~. ~E~~ C~"-''''' ~~.;l $ ~ ~ II> ~ \~ ~'~ ~ ,~. S? ,"". e8o"O~ ,I'" ~~~g~ .~~ .;g _ ';ii ;; :::Hi ~'S ~;6 .~ ~i~ 10. -: ~~ ~.~."t<:: ...,....~ i"" i ~.g . }l!\. ;: ~~ ;l~~\ ii, ..4\ ~ ~ i~'~, ",,\~ ;Y,;') at. ! ; ~ '\,'~ <"i).'i _ ~ e;1' ~ '<" ~ 4.0 ~ :~ -s e 1:;1 "{~,,, '",-.'t:l:' a:'Qi 0 R ,} I!' u.ls.cij.~ C). ie u _ ~ 1l! .. ,.it. ,~ i _i ~\ >i ~\~ 15\-:: cr.\;t \ , 1\ ~ lY. wI;; :;;\7- .: \;; <,ii:. NOllV3flaclV lOOlKcl KSo.mIOIllON.O:1 ~~- .....N:"'J i i , ~ 5 l ~ ~ o .. ~i i !-i 1& 8j ~ a.€ I....i. !!!... !ii. Q' ~ ~t .~t <( al :sO:: nn~ ~o';! i~!.~.' :\1:8 ~ ~.~~ 1 t.iii ci i~-a:€ ~ ! ,~a i ~ ~ w ~ ti ~ j m g o m is l5 ~ o -i Z ~ <t '}: > 1 t 1 i ! \ 'i ~ 5> 'lG 'i g ~.... ;:6 ~ al ~ ~ ~.ii 5 1 ~ ~~ ~ - 1= ~:! i ;:1 i ~ .. tl -$ 1-' is. 3 ~ ~~ ...... n> -Ill ~~ i g '!I~" 4~ -' - i'! i' ~~ '~lb i\ ~l c!~~i~ .a~ i~g !~ '1g I>;> t 1 ~'! ~l;;; 5 c oN ~CI:~ 0 .. j II i ~.~ ~. \i I ~~.i 1& ~~B. ~i ~!~.~ii i o 'is o.~ c> c: <t 15~lji~ ~ ioi'i~'i:S ,; Q-Cl~" - ii\\~~ } ~:~gii ~ ~ a.l;,I~ i41 i tit' l~i. >1\110: 8i~ :<11 l~l .,.~Js i ,,~~U55 g.. _ 2 0 .... ~,ss;'" -~ i"" Q:: %...: oa~ ~ i i ."ijlj ~ ] .$ j!.... "'~ ~~ I i! 'tl_ l;: i~ ,.l.1 It !.'$. <0"" 41e i~ l~ _41 !~ i~ -a.e- :J'i ~g ~t ~ g ~ .... " D ~ Q. 1 4! a ~ \ ~ \ .. I- o Z' ~~ ~~ ii 0", i:j \i ~ill J it ! ': i ~ .c - 1 ~~ Sl .cO c7i u a It- a ,: \ ~ l !, 1. ROBERT D. VOQGT Agenda \teliiJ9 . Pa:g~J 2 Item #19 Robert D. Voogt Conditional Use Permit 1851 & 1853 Old Donation Parkway District 5 Lynnhaven June 14,2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: Our next agenda item is Item #19, Robert D. Voogt. It is for a Conditional Use Permit for a facility for the disabled located at 1851 and 1853 Old Donation Parkway in the Lynnhaven District. Welcome. RJ, Nutter: Thank you very much. Ms. Anderson, for the record, my name is RJ. Nutter. I'm an attorney representing Dr. Voogt. Dr. Voogt is with me today along with a small group. We are very happy to be here, and especially happy to be on the consent agenda. All of the conditions in your report are acceptable. We look forward to getting this project underway as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Nutter. = RJ. Nutter: My pleasure. Janice Anderson: Ms. Wood could you please review the application? Dorothy Wood: The staff recommends approval of this application. It is a Conditional Use Permit for a convalescent facility to allow development of the site for the care of patents with serious cognitive impairments such as Alzheimer's disease. The facility will provide a safe and secure environment for patients who cannot recognize danger or provide for their own safety. The facility will accommodate 40 to 48 patients at anyone time. The number of permanent staff will be approximately 40. The new building will include two story commons and support area and one story wings. There will be four wings each accommodating twelve bedrooms, with a tie-in between each of these wings consisting of patios, lawns and landscaped areas. A walk way will run behind the building connecting each of the patio areas. The building elevations submitted with the application depict a traditional style building with a gable style roof. The exterior of the building will be covered with traditional red brick. The gables and the roof, and the exterior font fa~ade of the common and support building will be covered with lap siding. The proposed site layout quite fails to meet one of the dimensional requirements of the 0- 2 Office District, since the lot coverage is depicted on the plan is at 32 percent. This deviation is discussed further in the evaluation in the report, but we think that it is such an attractive building, and the staff recommends. I would be happy to recommend support. Item #19 Robert D. Voogt Page 2 Janice Anderson: Thank you Ms. Wood. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion for approval of consent agenda item #19. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor to approve the consent agenda item #19. Do I have a second? A second by Kathy Katsias. Is there any discussion? AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE K.A TSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE = Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item #19. K. APPOINTMENTS BEACHES AND W A TERW A YS COMMISSION BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE BUILDING CODE OF APPEALS - New Construction BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD EASTERN VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE - PPEA SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON ROADS L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS M. NEW BUSINESS N. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V D 0 I E H M B L D E C E L DATE: 7/11/06 S J J C R U A W PAGE: I T E N L N N [ 0 H E Z D L A D U L W N R AGENDA P E y E N 0 E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E E A R I V 0 H R Y F N 0 S N N A D I BRIEFING: A P ARKS/RECREA TION - Customer Service Cindy Curtis, Survey Director, Parks and Recreation B RESORT OPERATIONS - Issues, Challenges, Deputy Chief and Pol ice Strategies Gregory G. Mullen Il/IlIIIV 1 CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION CERTIFIED 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y V NIlE F ELECTION OF THE VICE MAYOR Louis R. Jones 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2006-2008 Elected GfH OATH OF OFFICE - VICE MAYOR Tina E. Sinnen, Clerk, Circuit Court I MINUTES APPROVED 10-0 Y A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y B INFORMALfFORMAL SESSIONS 6127106 S T A I N E D J PUBLIC HEARINGS NO SPEAKERS LEASE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY Atlantic Bistro, LLC tJa Ribley's - 910 Atlantic Avenue. ADD OCEANA GARDENS ACQUISITION NO SPEAKERS ON By agreement or condemnation KlLfMJl Ordinances to AMEND the City Code: ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y Y CONSENT a. *5-102 to designate Virginia Wild Horse Rescue for protection/relocation of wild horses b. *2-230 to increase penalty fee for bad ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y checks to $35 in accordance with State CONSENT law CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARYOFCOUNCHACrrONS V D 0 I E H M B L DATE: 7J\ 1/06 S D E C E L PAGE: I J C R U A W 2 T E N L N N I 0 H E Z D L A D U L W AGENDA E Y N N 0 R E S P E 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E E A R I V 0 H R Y N F A N 0 S N D 2 Ordinance to GRANT a franchise for ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Open Air Cafe to Atlantic Bistro, LLC CONSENT t/a Ribleys 3 Ordinance to DESIGNATE St. Gregory ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y the Great Cathotic Church as EXEMPT CONSENT from Real/ Personal Property Taxation 4 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y of land in Ocean a Gardens, by CONSENT agreement/condemnation, re SE Pkwy/Greenbelt project 5 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y encroachment into City property to CONSENT LITCHFIELD MANOR PHASE 2 HOMEOWNER'S ASSOC re a flag pole/conduit/brick wall/neighborhood ID sign/ lighting at Litchfield Way/HolIand Road 6 Ordinances to APPROPRIA TE/ ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y TRANSFER: CONSENT a. APPROPRIATE $150,000 from DEA Seized Property Special Revenue Fund b TRANSFER $300,000 to Police re ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y helicopter/air ambulance/hangar CONSENT c. TRANSFER $200,000 to Fire Budget re ADOPTED, BY 10-1 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y selection process for applicants CONSENT d. TRANSFER $225,000 within School's ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Capital Budget re tennis courts at Green CONSENT Run/Salemi Tallwood High Schools Nil VERIZON WIRELESS Modification of MODIFIED AS 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Conditions re CUP to allow directional CONDITIONED, BY CONSENT panel antennas on communications towers: a. 1036 Ferry Plantation Road (Approved Sept 26, 1995) (DISTRICT 4- BA YSIDE) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V D 0 I E H M B L DATE: 7/11106 D E C E L S I J C R U A W PAGE: 3 T E N L N N I 0 H E Z D L A D V L W AGENDA E y E N N 0 R E S ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P L E E A R I V 0 0 H R y N F A N 0 S N D b. 5636 Southern Blvd (Approved January MODIFIED AS 11-0 Y Y Y y y y y Y Y Y Y 23, 1996) CONDITIONED, BY CONSENT (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) 2 GARY W. SMITH CUP re skateboard APPROVED/ 11-0 Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y ramp at 804 Terrace Avenue (DISTRICT CONDITIONED, BY CONSENT 6 - BEACH) 3 VA BEACH CHRISTIAN LIFE APPROVED/ 10-1 Y Y Y N Y Y Y y Y Y Y CENTER dba WAVE CHURCH CUP CONDITIONED, ADDING re church/accessory uses at Seaboard ROADWAY RoadlLive Oak Trail ALIGNMENT (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) 4 KEMPSVILLE PRESBYTERIAN APPROVEDI 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y y CHURCH CUP re church CONDITIONED, BY CONSENT expansion/structure at 805 Kempsville Road (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) 5 CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP APPROVED/ 11-0 y Y Y y Y Y Y y y Y Y CHURCH CUP re church in shopping CONDITIONED, BY CONSENT center at 544 Newtown Road (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) 6 GREENBRIER TECHNOLOGY APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y CENTER II ASSOC, LLC, (Strayer CONDITIONED, BY CONSENT University) CUP re private college at 249 Central Park Avenue (DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN) 7 PINEWOODS, LLC COZfrom A-12 to APPROVED AS 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y Conditional RT-3 at 524 Laskin Road PROFFERED BY CONSENT (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) 8 AMEND/CZO ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y y CONSENT a. * I 04 re civil penalties for violations of commercial vehicles/recreational equipment! increase penalties/REPEAL *217 b. * 1809 re CUP as principal uses in Accident Potential Zone 111-2 Districts. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V D 0 I E H M B L DATE: 711 1/06 D E C E L S I J C R U A W PAGE: 4 T E N L N N I 0 H E Z D L A D U L W AGENDA E Y N N 0 R E S P E 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E E A R I V 0 H R Y N F A N 0 S N D O. APPOINTMENTS RESCHEDULED B Y C 0 N S E N S U S BEACHES AND WATER WAYS COMMISSION BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE BUILDING CODE OF APPEALS- New Construction BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD EASTERN YIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADlISORY COMMITTEE- PPEA SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON ROADS OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY Appointed: 9-0 Y A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A COMMITTEE 2 Members of City Council Louis R. Jones Rosemary Wilson 2 Members of Development Authority Donald V. Jellig, Chair Page G. Lea, V. Chair City Manager City Attorney Chief of Development (when filled) 1 Resident in APZI Sam Reid PARKS AND PARKS AND RECREATION Appointed 2 years 9-0 Y A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A COMMISSION Mark McKenzie, Jr. Kempsville High School ADDED RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION Appointed: 9-0 Y A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A (Planning Design & Revie\\Committee) Unexpired thru 12/31/08 Crime Prevention Specialist Master Police Officer Jeff Eaton P/Q/R 7:43 pm I ADJOURNMENT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V D 0 I E H M B L D E C E L DATE: 711 1106 S I J C R U A W PAGE: 5 T E N L N N I 0 H E Z D L A D U L W AGENDA E y N N 0 R E S p E 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L E E A R I V 0 0 H R Y N F N S N A D I 6 SPEAKERS I ~ I PUBLIC COMMENT CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS RESCHEDULED July 18,2006 Briefing, Informal and Formal Sessions July 19 - August 7,2006 City Council Vacation August 8, 2006 Resume Regular Schedule