No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 12, 2006 AGENDACITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH A COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District 4 WILLIAM R. "Bill " DESMEPH, At -Large HARRY E. DIEZEL Kempsville - District 2 ROBERTM "Bob" DYER, Centerville -District I BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District 7 REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 JOHN E. UHRIN, Beach - District 6 RON A. VILLANUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 C17T MANAGER -.LAMES K. SPORE CITY ATTORNEY - LESLIE L. LILLEY CITY CLERK - RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 12 DECEMBER 2006 CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 234568005 PHONE (757) 385-4303 FAX (757) 385-5669 E- MAIL: Ciycncl@vbgov.com I. CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING - Conference Room - 1:00PM A. MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL Prescott Sherrod, Chairman II. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING A. NEWSRACK ORDINANCE Mike Eason, Resort Programs Administrator — Convention and Visitors Bureau III. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION A. CITY'S FUND BALANCE IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V. REVIEW OF AGENDA 11 VI. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:00 PM II A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION II VII. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Dr. J. Scottie Griffin Lynnhaven Presbyterian Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS December 5, 2006 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PROPOSED CONDEMNATION Princess Anne Road Phase VII at Elson Green Avenue intersection I. CONSENT AGENDA J. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES Resolution re issuance by the Virginia Beach Development Authority (VBDA) of Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of $3,000,000 for Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. for a manufacturing plant at the intersection of Production Road and Central Drive. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) 2. Resolution to SUPPLEMENT the 2007 Community Legislative Package re adding proposed ABC establishments that pose a threat to public safety. 3. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City's application for allocation of $1-Million through the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2006-07 Revenue Sharing Program; and, AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute all necessary agreements for the Lynnhaven Parkway Phase IX project's development and construction. 4. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) re the Hampton Roads Regional Water Supply Planning Process. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the Department of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to apply for an upgrade to its agency license from an Emergency Ground Transport Agency to an Emergency Ground Transport and Air Ambulance Agency. 6. Commonwealth of Virginia Vegetation Control Permit Program: a. Resolution to AUTHORIZE an Agreement for the delegation of administration to the City of Virginia Beach. b. Ordinance re the application of ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING to allow the removal and replacement, with conditions, of certain vegetation on Virginia Beach Boulevard 7. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Deed of Release and Exchange re an Agricultural Lands Preservation Easement (ARP) re a land exchange of equal area on property owned by Edward L Vaughan and previously approved by City Council. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of property in fee simple, including temporary and permanent easements, at General Booth Boulevard, Elson Green Avenue and Upton Drive/Sandbridge Road for the right-of-way for Princess Anne Road, Phase VII, either by agreement or condemnation. 9. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to issue Franchise Agreements to Old Virginia Carriage Co., LLC, from November 15, 2006 to April 15, 2007, re: a. Guided horse tours on the sand beach between Rudee Inlet and 42nd Street b. Horse-drawn carriage rides on the Boardwalk 10. Ordinances to TRANSFER: IA a. $421,810 from the Lynnhaven XI project to the Buckner Boulevard Extended project and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Cost Participation Agreement with Baymark Construction Corporation, Colonial Self Storage and Public Storage re the extension of Buckner Boulevard. b. $350,000 from Reserve for Contingencies to the Department of Economic Development's FY 2006-07 operating budget re continued operating costs for the Tournament Players Club (TPC) golf course through March 31, 2007. as". epalae7 2. 3. Application of EDWARD A., JR. and KATHLEEN T. KURPIEL for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance at 2184 Princess Anne Road re subdividing an existing lot into two lots. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) RECOMMENDATION DENIAL Application of CINGULAR WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit re a communications tower at 5638 Baccalaureate Drive. (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) (Applicant requests Deferral to January 9, 2007) RECOMMENDATION DEFER TO JANUARY 9, 2007 Application of DISCIPLESHIP TABERNACLE for a Conditional Use Permit re a church at 3540 Holland Road. (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL Applications of BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. at 6226 Providence Road: (DISTRICT 1— CENTERVILLE) a Chan3ze of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District b. Conditional Use Permit re a senior housing project STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DEFERRAL APPROVAL Application of OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District at Centerville Turnpike and Lynnhaven Parkway to develop the site with retail, restaurants, offices and multi -family condos. (DISTRICT 1— CENTERVILLE) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 6. Application of DEEP BLUE MARINE, L.L.C. for a Modification of Conditions at 3716 Shore Drive (approved by City Council on October 25, 2005) re landscape plantings and site improvements. (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) RECOMMENDATION L. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TASK FORCE HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HREDA) HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE-PPEA OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OLD BEACH DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING COMMISSION SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS SCHEDULE JANUARY 2007 APPROVAL COMBINE THE FIRST AND SECOND REGULAR TUESDAYS - JANUARY 9, 2007 REGULAR THIRD TUESDAY WORKSHOP - JANUARY 16, 2007 THE REGULAR FOURTH TUESDAY AGENDA - JANUARY 23, 2007 If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303 Agenda 12/12/2006 gw www.vbgov.com I. CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING - Conference Room - 1:00PM A. MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL Prescott Sherrod, Chairman II. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING A. NEWSRACK ORDINANCE Mike Eason, Resort Programs Administrator — Convention and Visitors Bureau III. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION A. CITY' S FUND BALANCE IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V. REVIEW OF AGENDA VI. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VII. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Dr. J. Scottie Griffin Lynnhaven Presbyterian Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS December 5, 2006 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PROPOSED CONDEMNATION Princess Anne Road Phase VII at Elson Green Avenue intersection �Re�n1�t#46nn 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. PUBLIC HEARING I. PROPOSED CONDEMNATION Princess Anne Road Phase VII at Elson Green Avenue intersection PUBLIC HEARING CONDEMNATION Tf* MrRY" GeaOC4 Commit "I hold a PU U C HEAR - I 4 too Prop-wnwasm W ifle NG co the proposed:zon&vmotion IL Princess Anie Road PhaSS Vil Msfeel ' (CIP 21951. T.U.". Wyi - t cham— th-A CftCody"i December =4. 2-006, at 6X,-r-, : v ri I n. ber s o,vw t t-h-e off loullm. g :(E U.-Ild Mi. i4 at. Pa Peaal Mumidpat -Ceftee, VV 'Us Sr.,' IVV .: I& Tr: 111". are w9m, at me muffieg am s&65esu =Ua-dr&.ft -0.1 the "oess. Arm RoaqfEfsoo &enarn Awu:- eMvn* Ltd dosated: as GRUsn. 2,41-4-141522 and 241A.; 'lit be tO ObWin- PUbille MpUt U .0se. of this Headngl* co ThA- PiNK dete—mine vhetw- these propRetles stmM be acquVed. ttn cm. rr)m:arm physically dsaMe4,rr-AsuaJ1y impair-odand. med Si al at this maeUv- ,, plus a -all: tie CITY CLE,FtK!S OFFICE at 38&430& UJS� Mt WS StMW W.- dW,,V.d: to, t—he;G MW* ct Reat E-sta-b-C'Ou C'm 2.9.2 4 at the Vil- Iffir-GA.2.0. Ro. - .onfaise-aCh'FAU MolpW- C�. :(7,57) 285-416L�. rom�-= M * P th: tic jj, IX *IV*-ssnllw M City Oerk & VP Dect-47mer, a., 2m 16-222195 I. CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES Resolution re issuance by the Virginia Beach Development Authority (VBDA) of Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of $3,000,000 for Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. for a manufacturing plant at the intersection of Production Road and Central Drive. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) 2. Resolution to SUPPLEMENT the 2007 Community Legislative Package re adding proposed ABC establishments that pose a threat to public safety. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City's application for allocation of $1-Million through the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2006-07 Revenue Sharing Program; and, AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute all necessary agreements for the Lynnhaven Parkway Phase IXproject's development and construction. 4. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) re the Hampton Roads Regional Water Supply Planning Process. Resolution to AUTHORIZE the Department of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to apply for an upgrade to its agency license from an Emergency Ground Transport Agency to an Emergency Ground Transport and Air Ambulance Agency. Commonwealth of Virginia Vegetation Control Permit Program: a. Resolution to AUTHORIZE an Agreement for the delegation of administration to the City of Virginia Beach. b. Ordinance re the application of ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING to allow the removal and replacement, with conditions, of certain vegetation on Virginia Beach Boulevard 7. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Deed of Release and Exchange re an Agricultural Lands Preservation Easement (ARP) re a land exchange of equal area on property owned by Edward L Vaughan and previously approved by City Council. 8. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of property in fee simple, including temporary and permanent easements, at General Booth Boulevard, Elson Green Avenue and Upton Drive/Sandbridge Road for the right-of-way for Princess Anne Road, Phase VII, either by agreement or condemnation. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to issue Franchise Agreements to Old Virginia Carriage Co., LLC, from November 15, 2006 to April 15, 2007, re: a. Guided horse tours on the sand beach between Rudee Inlet and 42nd Street b. Horse-drawn carriage rides on the Boardwalk 10. Ordinances to TRANSFER: a. $421,810 from the Lynnhaven XI project to the Buckner Boulevard Extended project and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a Cost Participation Agreement with Baymark Construction Corporation, Colonial Self Storage and Public Storage re the extension of Buckner Boulevard. b. $350,000 from Reserve for Contingencies to the Department of Economic Development's FY 2006-07 operating budget re continued operating costs for the Tournament Players Club (TPQ golf course through March 31, 2007. 10 k CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution of City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia approving the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 Background: The City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority") has considered the request of Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc (the "Company") for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 to assist in the (a) financing of the Company's construction and equipping of an approximately 63,000 square foot building to house a facility to manufacture fuel tanks, sound attenuated enclosures and attendant electrical systems (the "Project") located on a parcel of land containing approximately 4.2 acres located on Production Road approximately 1.2 miles east of the intersection of Production Road and Central Drive in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and (b) financing costs associated with the issuance of the bonds. Considerations: The matter comes before Council for its approval pursuant to § 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia which requires the municipality on behalf of which the bonds of an authority are issued to either approve or disapprove any financing recommended by such authority within sixty (60) days of the date of the authority's public hearing. Public Information: The request was duly advertised for a public hearing before the Authority in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code. Alternatives: Not Approve, which would result in the bonds not being issued for the facilities. Recommendations: Approval Attachments: IDP Submission to Council Location Map Resolution for City of Virginia Beach Affidavit to Publication & 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 November 21, 2006 APPROVAL Submitting Department/Agency: Development Authority City Manage . � l C�GvnsG' V:\applications\citylawprod\cyco izW ocs0029\PO01\00024086.D VIRGINIA BEACH The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Members of City Council Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Department of Economic Development 222 Central Park Avenue. Suite 1000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (757)437-6464 FAX (757) 499-9894 Website: www.vb-ov.eom E-mail: ecdev@vbgov.com November 21, 2006 Re: Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Dear Mayor Oberndorf and Members of City Council: We submit the following in connection with project Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc., located on Production Road approximately 1.2 miles east of the intersection of Production Road and Central Drive 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 ExhibitB . 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 modification of the bonds described above is attached as Exhibit E. (4) The Fiscal Impact Statement is attached as Exhibit F. The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Members of City Council November 21, 2006 Page 2 (5) Attached as Exhibit G is a summary sheet setting forth the type of issue, and identifying the Project and the principals. (6) Attached as Exhibit H is a letter from the Department of Economic Development commenting on the Project. Very truly yours, Donald V. Jellig Chair DVJ/AWS/mlg Enclosures Project Name: Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. 'Project Address: Parcel 61, Production Lane, 4ceana Industrial Park Virginia Beach, Virginia Type of Project: Light Industrial 1 RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE 2 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 3 APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF 4 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE 5 BONDS FOR ACOUSTICAL SHEETMETAL, 6 INC. 7 8 9 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach Development 10 Authority (the Authority) has considered the application of 11 Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. (the Company) for the issuance 12 of the Authority's Revenue Bonds (the Bonds) in an amount 13 not to exceed $3,000,000 to assist the Company in (a) 14 financing the construction and equipping of an 15 approximately 63,000 square foot building to house a 16 facility to manufacture fuel tanks, sound attenuated 17 enclosures and attendant electrical systems (the Project) 18 located on a parcel of land containing approximately 4.2 19 acres located on Production Road approximately 1.2 miles 20 east of the intersection of Production Road and Central 21 Drive in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and (b) to 22 finance costs associated with the issuance of the Bonds; 23 and 24 WHEREAS, the Authority has held a public hearing with 25 respect to the Project and the Bonds on November 21, 2006, 26 and has adopted an inducement resolution with respect 27 thereto; and 28 WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended 29 (the Code), provides that the highest elected governmental 30 officials of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over 31 the issuer of private activity bonds shall approve the 32 issuance of such bonds; and 33 WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of 34 the City and the members of the City Council of the City 35 (the Council) constitute the highest elected governmental 36 officials of the City; and 37 WHEREAS, Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 38 1950, as amended (the Virginia Code), provides that the 39 Council shall, within sixty (60) calendar days from the 40 public hearing with respect to industrial development 41 revenue bonds either approve or disapprove the issuance of 42 such bonds; and 43 WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution 44 approving the issuance of the Bonds, a reasonably detailed 45 summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing 46 with respect to the Project and the Bonds and a statement 47 in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of the Virginia 48 Code have been filed with the Council, together with the 49 Authority's recommendation that the Council approve the 50 issuance of the Bonds; 51 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF 52 THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 53 1. The recitals made in the first preamble to this 54 resolution are hereby adopted as a part of this resolution. 55 2. The City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 56 Virginia, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the 57 Authority for the purposes stated herein, such approval 58 being given to the extent required by the Code and Section 59 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code. 60 3. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as 61 required by the Code and the Virginia Code, does not 62 constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the 63 Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Company and, as 64 required by Chapter 643 of the Acts of Assembly of 1964, as 65 amended (the Act), the Bonds shall provide that neither the 66 City nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds 67 or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto 68 except from the revenues and monies pledged therefor and 69 neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the 70 Commonwealth of Virginia, the City or the Authority shall 71 be pledged thereto. 72 4. This resolution shall effect immediately upon its 73 adoption. 74 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia 75 Beach, Virginia, on the day of CA10158 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\W pdocs\D015\P0o 1 \00023504.DOC R-1 November 30, 2006 2006. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ,k* /4 City A torney Exhibit A THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT NORFOLK, VIRGINIA AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The Virginian -Pilot ------------------------------------------------ f KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C. SUITE 2100 150 W MAIN ST NORFOLK VA 23510 I REFERENCE: 10236406 16088977 State of Virginia City of Norfolk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA This day, Dreama Johnson 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 Virginia 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: 11/07 11/14 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FINANCING BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR ACOUSTICAL SHEETMETAL, INC. NCMce is hereby even that the•, C: v of Wolin"., BeaCl DF•vn: mv'w:a A_,'.hon, tV ILhe A,".Ofl!y: V:1Y:Sd' At!d'eS`.. r Z-- C•rr., inl Per. Avomx'. 5!ute 1000, V, pr"' aeec` . vlgnl:1�2:,z: Will I;uld a Pi;bse hearing ch the plan o! fman,ce U A m:s eat S!'n,at!netal,. hr. Rh, COfnPb!'y1, 'r:!:r)5:' t,:birv2'us is tucr,lc�t aI 722 5. W!LCMUCI, Road.:4:gnts Btsacl% vir„!'la to, rfx; isIuAncn Ivy ;he %"ti:rwy o' i,•, •.. u�.•+.+.. iw:'ds an amount not to ex•-tv"I ssoiI6,00X! m a•:ast '^ cawptrf'y er I 'inandnC nv. egnrv:,ci+af .,nd •x:u:pP-�g nt :, ..;..rro.,. ,yt�:v i.$ rj!,q'.. ain> [P+,l u..,*.:•nc; 'c' :­ 1i8'.J!i3f'tUft' fU",•t:tnl". ' xtendnnt etr `tm-al frhe Praaa; located on o pnrcet i u' lctn:} C!-."aminf; d(r.N oxifn87e:Ip 4.2 jc^ ,3 Itxz9e-ti (+n Rrto- wl:ticn P.ceal a oroxiraatc lv : ? '.nd. em,: rd far ufl!•f s- i .X' nt ProduCbOn Pn.A .An,t C111ral i),•yP +n :he C!Ly' nt 'm i t;wa Beach, Virginal, and fb: pa,mg :he r,:st of :as g the tx,:ns. Ine Proiect will be owned tA, t1w {:m;wny. 1hr pub ac h9'Inrg•'Mtn.n tn:ly 11 e * 14!nUVd of iw,lu' —,r1 will any heat! iai 8.30 a.m. an November 21. 2006. txf,.r. ;h,,' i Awha,ly in the Cx1ewence tour•; a: Ks utmc,. T},e Lmcu , ,a;n+ nut 6il('dpv 'ye rrrt!rt nr tho taring pr,.or n'. tnn (}ty o Vff- 'Kinia EN)0', Wpi,a. o! the A;W*,.ty but w•1; oe Payable!{ solely ffw !';venues denyvd from t! ; f;umoan!. A!ry fA:r_+)n :nt!"nted Ir, Ihf :: wnca of thy > ;mis rn -.+e !rxn@on o• hffio'e of the Ptorvct rtlay,appp;t; cro rr. he?+v d. A ropy of t1w res.oiutiun to iX! considers tyv the AaihLfRS a+t=.r :It, p.,Wx he.r,no, wits ie ut. Ole rt, And oaer! fx k�spLon At ita; r no'^,'S rI icn :f•.:r*rtg !tcsmrsr.. !'our: pifo• U1 'h,• hed-r£• i TOTAL COST: 864.96 AD SPACE: 106 LINE FILED ON: lti/7/06 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1- i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'t• ------------------------ Legal ;�,Uiant :.' Subscribed and Swqrn Lo before sae in my cf ty and state on the day and year af oresid4' this � iKpf �� xri = ':._� 1... NXY commission expires January 31, 2008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FINANCING BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR ACOUSTICAL SHEETMETAL, INC. Notice is hereby given that the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the Authority) whose address is 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, will hold a public hearing on the plan of finance of Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. (the Company), whose business is located at 122 S. Witchduck Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, for the issuance by the Authority of its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 to assist the Company in (a) financing the construction and equipping of an approximately 63,000 square foot building to house a facility to manufacture fuel tanks, sound attenuated enclosures and attendant electrical systems (the Project) located on a parcel of land containing approximately 4.2 acres located on Production Road approximately 1.2 miles east of the intersection of Production Road and Central Drive in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and (b) paying the cost of issuing the bond. The Project will be owned by the Company. The public hearing, which may be continued or adjourned, will be held at 8:30 a.m. on November 21, 2006, before the Authority in the conference room at its office. The bonds will not pledge the credit or the taxing power of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, or the Authority but will be payable solely from revenues derived from the Company. Any person interested in the issuance of the bonds or the location or nature of the Project may appear and be heard. A copy of the resolution to be considered by the Authority after the public hearing will be on file and open for inspection at the Authority's office during business hours prior to the public hearing. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006, AND TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCSNFK\ 1147739\ 1 Exhibit B SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FOR ACOUSTICAL SHEETMETAL, INC. At 8:30 a.m. on November 21, 2006, the Chairman of the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the Authority) announced the commencement of a public hearing of the Authority in the conference room at its office located at 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, on the plan of finance of Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. (the Company), whose business is located at 122 S. Witchduck Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, for the issuance by the Authority of its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 to assist the Company in (a) financing the construction and equipping of an approximately 63,000 square foot building to house a facility to manufacture fuel tanks, sound attenuated enclosures and attendant electrical systems (the Project) located on a parcel of land containing approximately 4.2 acres located on Production Road approximately 1.2 miles east of the intersection of Production Road and Central Drive in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and (b) paying the cost of issuing the bond. The Project will be owned by the Company. Caryl S. Johnson, Bond Counsel, spoke and disclosed to the Authority the nature of the financing plan, and then invited questions concerning the financing from members of the Authority. No questions were raised. No other comments being made by anyone from the public, the public hearing was closed at 8:45 a.m. ::0DMA\PCD0CS\D0CSNFK11158250\1 Exhibit C RESOLUTION OF CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, there has been described to the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the Authority), the request of Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the Company) the principal business address of which is 122 S. Witchduck Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462, for the issuance by the Authority of its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 (the Bonds) to assist the Company in (a) financing the construction and equipping of an approximately 63,000 square foot building to house a facility to manufacture fuel tanks, sound attenuated enclosures and attendant electrical systems located on a parcel of land containing approximately 4.2 acres located on Production Road approximately 1.2 miles east of the intersection of Production Road and Central Drive in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the Project), and (b) financing the cost of issuing the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Company in its appearance before the Authority and its application has described the benefits to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the City), to be derived from the Project and has requested the Authority to agree to issue the Bonds under Chapter 643 of the Acts of Assembly of 1964, as amended (the Act); and WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to the above matters has been held on November 21, 2006, as required by Virginia law and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code). BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the issuance of the Bonds will benefit the inhabitants of the City and promote their safety, health, welfare, convenience and prosperity. 2. The Authority hereby agrees to assist the Company in the financing of the Project by undertaking the issuance of the Bonds upon terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon between the Authority and the Company. The Company will execute and deliver a promissory note which will provide payments to the Authority sufficient to pay the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and to pay all other expenses in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and the Authority's administration thereof. The Bonds shall be issued in form and pursuant to terms to be set by the Authority, and the payment of the Bonds shall be secured by an assignment, for the benefit of the holders thereof, of the Authority's rights to payments under the promissory note. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the acquisition and installation of the Project, the Authority hereby agrees that the Company may take such steps as it may deem appropriate in connection therewith, provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Company to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that the Company may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Bonds for all costs so incurred by it beginning from the date that is 60 days prior to the date of this resolution and as otherwise approved by bond counsel. 4. The Authority hereby agrees to the recommendation of the Company that Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., be appointed as bond counsel and hereby appoints such firm to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the Bonds. 5. The Authority hereby agrees, if requested, to accept the recommendation of the Company with respect to the purchase of the Bonds by a commercial bank or investment bank pursuant to terms to be mutually agreed upon. 6. All costs and expenses in connection with the financing plan shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds to the extent permitted by law or from funds of the Company and the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 7. 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 Bonds is hereby approved and confirmed. 8. The Authority hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the Council), approve the issuance of the Bonds 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 by the Authority pursuant to §15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code on the date hereof, and a copy of this resolution. 9. The Authority hereby elects to have the provisions of Section 144(a)(4) of the Code applied to the Bonds. 10. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The undersigned hereby certifies that the above resolution was duly adopted by a roll call vote of the commissioners of the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority at a meeting duly called and held on November 21, 2006, and that such resolution is in full force and effect on the date hereof. Dated: cc��e� Z� tZ.00b :ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCSNFK\l 147801 \1 7�e,k..A— t 1 L�o,a geeretexy, City of it ' is Beach Development Authority 2 Exhibit D DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Date: November 21, 2006 Applicant's Name(s): Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. All Owners (if different from applicant): N/A Type of Application: Rezoning: From To Conditional Use Permit: Street Closure: Subdivision Variance: Other: Bond A lication The following is to be completed by or for the Applicant: 1. If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all the officers of the Corporation: See attached schedule. 2. If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM or other Unincorporated Organization, list all members or partners in the organization: N/A The following is to be completed by or for the Owner (if different from the applicant) I . If the Owner is a CORPORATION, list all the officers of the Corporation: N/A 2. If the Owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM or other Unincorporated Organization, list all members or partners in the organization: N/A AC HEFT AL, INC. Y. Executive Vice Pre ' ent OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS Petra E. Snowden Presidient and Director Michael S. Ireland Executive Vice President and Director Dieter P. Steinhoff Secretary/Treasurer and Director ::ODMA\PCDOCS\DOCSNFK\l 148161 \1 Exhibit E "RGITOA BEACH Department of Economic Development 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 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE BONDS FOR ACOUSTICAL SHEETMETAL, INC. TO ASSIST IN CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF AN APPROXIMATELY 63,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY AND TO FINANCE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS. The Development Authority recommends approval of the above -referenced financing. The benefits of the Project to the City is as follows: (a) this is in the best interest of the public and will benefit the inhabitants of the City through the promotion of their safety, health, welfare, convenience and prosperity, and (b) the constructing and equipping of the Project for the Company in the City will provide a public benefit to the City by, among other things, promoting industry, commerce and developing trade. Exhibit F FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The undersigned applicant, in order to permit Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. 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: Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. Facility: On Production Road near the Intersection of Production Road and Central Drive in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia 1. Maximum amount of financing sought $3,000,000 2. Estimated taxable value of facility's real property to be constructed in the locality $3,600,000 3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates $36,000 4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates $15,300 5. Estimated merchant's capital tax per year using present tax rates -0- 6. a. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased From Virginia companies within the locality $816,700 b. Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be purchased from non -Virginia companies within the locality $774,000 C. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from Virginia companies within the locality $172,000 d. Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be purchased from non -Virginia companies within the locality $510,695 7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis (FTE) 25 8. Average annual salary per employee $34,112 Dated: November 21, 2006 ::ODMA\PCDOC S\DOCSNFK\ 1148160\ 1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Chairmak ACOUSTICAL SHEETMETA—INC. Executive Vic resident Exhibit G SUMMARY SHEET CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REVENUE BOND 1. PROJECT NAME: 2. LOCATION: 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 4. AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUE: 5. PRINCIPALS: 6. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: a. Present zoning classification of the Property b. Is rezoning proposed: C. If so, to what zoning classification? Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. 1.2 miles east of the intersection of Production Road and Central Drive in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Manufacturing Facility $3,000,000 See attached list of officers and directors Light Industrial Yes No XX OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS Petra E. Snowden President and Director Michael S. Ireland Executive Nice President and Director Dieter P. Steinhoff Secretary/Treasurer and Director :ODMAWCDOCSIDOCSNFK1i 148162/1 Exhibit H VMGINR BEICH November 21, 2006 Mr. Donald V. Jellig Chair Virginia Beach Development Authority 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Re: Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. Bond Financing Dear Don: 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 The Department of Economic Development concurs with the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 for Acoustical Sheetmetal, Inc. These funds are to be utilized primarily to finance the cost of constructing and equipping an approximately 63,000 square foot building to house a facility to manufacture fuel tanks, sound attenuated enclosures, and attendance electrical systems. The resulting public benefits are as follows: (a) this is in the best interest of the public and will benefit the inhabitants of the City through the promotion of their safety, health, welfare, convenience and prosperity, and (b) the constructing and equipping of the Project for the Company in the City will provide a public benefit to the City by, among other things, promoting industry, commerce and developing trade. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have at our meeting of November 215C Sincerely, Mark R. Wawner Project Development Coordinator MRW:l1s 4 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Supplementing the 2007 Community Legislative Agenda By Adding a Proposal for Legislation Regarding ABC Establishments that Pose a Threat to Public Safety MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 BACKGROUND: When a bar in the City presents serious public safety concerns, the Police Department can submit a report to the local Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC") officer, who may chose to investigate the matter. Following the investigation, the local ABC officer may chose to request an administrative hearing before an ABC hearing officer to determine whether the bar's license to serve alcoholic beverages should be suspended or revoked, or whether conditions should be imposed on the bar's continued operation. Because of the limited number of ABC hearing officers and delays that often are sought by bar owners, the hearinggenerally is not held for several months. If the hearing officer rules against the bar, then the bar owners routinely appeal to the full ABC Board. During this entire time —investigation, hearing before the hearing officer, and the appeal before the ABC Board —the bar is allowed to continue operating, despite the threat to public safety. Considerations: City Council adopted the City's 2007 Community Legislative Agenda ("CLA") on September 12, 2006. The attached resolution would supplement the CLA by adding a request for legislation to allow the City to seek a temporary injunction to enjoin the serving of alcoholic beverages if the bar poses a serious threat to public safety. As proposed, the City's request must be accompanied by an affidavit by the Chief of Police that the bar has become a place of gathering of persons committing violations of the law so frequent and serious as to be deemed a threat to public safety. Bar owners would be given written notice of the court proceeding and would be allowed to present evidence on their behalf. If the court issues the requested injunction, the injunction will continue until a final adjudication of charges pending before the ABC Board. Public Information: Key stakeholders in this issue have been consulted. The normal Council agenda process will provide additional public information. Attachments: Resolution Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: City Attorney's Officy;r-- City Manage 1 A RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTING THE 2007 2 COMMUNITY LEGISLATIVE AGENDA BY ADDING 3 A PROPOSAL FOR LEGISLATION REGARDING 4 ABC ESTABLISHMENTS THAT POSE A THREAT 5 TO PUBLIC SAFETY 6 7 8 WHEREAS, on September 12, 2006, the City Council adopted 9 its 2007 Community Legislative Agenda and requested that members 10 of the City's local Delegation to the General Assembly sponsor 11 and/or support legislation therein; and 12 WHEREAS, state legislation is needed to enable to protect 13 the public from establishments that serve alcoholic beverages 14 and pose a threat to public safety, but a request for such 15 legislation is not currently part of the 2007 Community 16 Legislative Agenda; 17 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 18 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 19 That the City Council hereby amends its 2007 Community 20 Legislative Agenda by adding the attached request for 21 legislation regarding ABC establishments. 22 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 23 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 24 That the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy 25 of this Resolution and the attachment to each member of the 26 City's Delegation to the General Assembly. 27 28 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 29 Virginia, this day of 30 APPROVED TO CONTENT AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 2006. CA-10224 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D001\P001\00024335.DOC December 1, 2006 R-1 ATTACHMENT ABC ESTABLISHMENTS THAT POSE A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY Virginia Beach Police Department Background Information: When a bar in the City presents serious public safety concerns, the Police Department can submit a report to the local Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC") officer, who may chose to investigate the matter. Following the investigation, the local ABC officer may chose to request an administrative hearing before an ABC hearing officer to determine whether the bar's license to serve alcoholic beverages should be suspended or revoked, or whether conditions should be imposed on the bar's continued operation. Because of the limited number of ABC hearing officers and delays that often are sought by bar owners, the hearing generally is not held for several months. If the hearing officer rules against the bar, then the bar owners routinely appeal to the full ABC Board. During this entire time —investigation, hearing before the hearing officer, and the appeal before the ABC Board —the bar is allowed to continue operating, despite the threat to public safety.. Request: The General Assembly is requested to enact legislation with the following provisions: Any locality may file a complaint in the Circuit Court seeking a temporary injunction preventing an establishment or club within its jurisdiction from serving alcoholic beverages upon a finding by the local police chief or sheriff that the establishment or club is a threat to the public safety of the community. Any Complaint for a temporary injunction filed under this section shall be supported by an Affidavit of the local police chief or sheriff demonstrating that the establishment or club has become a place of gathering of persons committing violations of the law so frequent and serious as to be deemed a threat to public safety. The Affidavit shall be supported by records of such violations. The Complaint, accompanied by the Affidavit and attachments, shall be served upon the owner of such establishment or club by personal service or by posting at the address of the establishment or club. Notice shall also be provided to the Regional Alcoholic Beverage Control Officer who shall initiate an inquiry and hearing as to whether the ABC license of the establishment or club should be revoked. A hearing shall be held, and evidence taken, by the Court within ten days after service of the Complaint on the owner of the establishment as provided herein. Upon a finding by the Court that the establishment or club is a threat to the public safety of the community, the Court shall enjoin the serving of alcoholic beverages by the establishment or club. The locality shall not be required to post a bond in order for an injunction under this section to issue. If the court grants a temporary injunction, the injunction shall remain in effect until the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board has entered a final determination regarding the status of the ABC license. If the court does not grant the temporary injunction, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board shall nevertheless continue its inquiry as to the charges alleged in the Affidavit and make such findings and take such actions as are otherwise provided by law. dp SHC OCATIU� � .so w�. w CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution for Approval to Apply for Project Matching Funds Under the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The General Assembly continued the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Revenue Sharing Program for FY 2006-07. This program allows for a 50/50 match of up to $1,000,000 for projects that can enhance safety and/or capacity. The City has identified the Lynnhaven Parkway Phase IX project (from Holland Road to Lishelle Place) as a candidate for this program. This project is currently in VDOT's Six -Year Improvement Program and the City's Capital Improvement Program and is scheduled to be advertised for construction in June 2007. ■ Considerations: The Revenue Sharing Program provides that localities that provide a share greater than the 50% matching requirement be given higher priority than other localities. The City already has sufficient funds in the project that can be used to satisfy more than our required match. The additional funding would help insure that the project receives adequate funding to be constructed in a timely manner. ■ Public Information: Public meetings have been held as part of the design process. ■ Recommendations: Approve the resolution to apply for project matching funds under the Revenue Sharing Program and authorize the City Manager to enter into any necessary agreements for project development and construction. ■ Attachments: Resolution and location map Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works City Manager: 601 I A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL TO APPLY FOR PROJECT 2 MATCHING FUNDS UNDER THE VDOT REVENUE SHARING 3 PROGRAM 4 5 WHEREAS, the City Council of Virginia Beach desires to 6 submit an application for an allocation of funds of up to 7 $1,000,000 through the Virginia Department of Transportation Fiscal 8 Year 2006-2007 Revenue Sharing Program; and 9 WHEREAS, $1,000,000 of these funds will be requested to 10 augment the funding for the Lynnhaven Parkway -Phase IX project (CIP 11 #2-157). 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 13 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA THAT: 14 1. The City Council hereby supports this application for 15 an allocation of $1,000,000 through the Virginia Department of 16 Transportation Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Revenue Sharing Program. 17 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute on 18 behalf of the City of Virginia Beach all the necessary agreements 19 for project development and construction. 20 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 21 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 1A 0 &21j� , jauw � - '� , L L",_ �4anagemCnU Services City Attorney's O ice CA10223 V:\applications\citylawprod\cyccm32\Wpdocs\D029\P001\00024008.DOC R-2 November 29, 2006 s,, a CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Authorizing And Directing The City Manager To Execute On Behalf Of The City Of Virginia Beach A Memorandum Of Agreement Pertaining To The Hampton Roads Regional Water Supply Planning Process MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: In the aftermath of the 2001-2003 drought, the Commonwealth of Virginia enacted legislation and regulations mandating the development of local and/or regional water supply plans. Local governments are required to prepare a water supply plan, or participate with other jurisdictions to develop a regional plan, for submittal to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by 2008. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) has offered to prepare a regional water supply plan in cooperation with the jurisdictions in the region, pursuant to a proposed agreement negotiated by the directors of the area -wide water supply systems. ■ Considerations: Program costs will be allocated among the local governments based upon the locality's share of total regional water connections. Virginia Beach's cost share is expected to be 27% of the total program cost, or approximately $28,000. If the City declines to participate, it will have to prepare and submit a water supply plan of its own, independent of the regional effort. ■ Public Information: This item will be advertised as part of the City Council agenda. ■ Alternatives: The alternative to participating in the regional water supply planning effort is to reject the resolution and not participate. The regional water supply planning program would go forward, but without the City's participation. This would be counterproductive, as the water systems in the region are significantly intertwined and the utilities cooperate on a number of water and wastewater issues that benefit the City. The Department of Public Utilities has sufficient funding in its reserves for contingencies to cover the City's share of the cost. If Council approves the resolution, funds will be transferred accordingly for this expense. ■ Recommendations: Adopt resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the participation agreement. ■ Attachments: Resolution, Summary of Material Terms Recommended Action: Adoption of Resolution Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Public Utilities Jnq 44 71�4 City Manager: k- W1 1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE 2 CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE 3 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH A MEMORANDUM OF 4 AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE HAMPTON ROADS 5 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING PROCESS 6 7 8 WHEREAS, in the aftermath of the 2001-2003 drought, the 9 Commonwealth of Virginia enacted legislation and regulations 10 mandating the development of local and/or regional water supply 11 plans; and 12 WHEREAS, such legislation and regulations require local 13 governments either to prepare a local water supply plan or to 14 participate with other jurisdictions to develop a regional plan; 15 and 16 WHEREAS, such plans are to be submitted to the Department 17 of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by 2008; and 18 WHEREAS, the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission 19 (HRPDC) has offered to prepare a regional water supply plan in 20 cooperation with the jurisdictions in the region, pursuant to a 21 proposed agreement negotiated by the directors of the area -wide 22 water supply systems; and 23 WHEREAS, program costs will be allocated among the local 24 governments based upon the locality's share of the total number 25 of water connections in the region, with Virginia Beach's share 26 expected to be in the approximate amount of Twenty - Eight 27 Thousand Dollars ($28,000); and 28 WHEREAS, water systems in this region are significantly 29 intertwined, and the various localities' Public Utilitv 30 Departments cooperate on a number of water and wastewater issues 31 that benefit the City, such that it is in the best interests of 32 the City to join with the other local governments in the region 33 to cooperate in developing a regional water supply plan meeting 34 the requirements of the aforesaid legislation and regulations; 35 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 36 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 37 That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to 38 execute, on behalf of the City Of Virginia Beach, a Memorandum 39 of Agreement pertaining to the Hampton Roads Regional Water 40 Supply Planning Process, a summary of the material terms of 41 which is hereto attached and a copy of which is on file in the 42 City Clerk's Office. 43 44 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 45 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. 46 CA-10220 OID/ORDRES/regional water supply MOA res.doc November 28, 2006 R-1 E APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Wz,� Public Utilities D artment City Attorney s Office Hampton Roads Regional Water Supply Planning Process Summary of Material Terms Background: Legislation adopted by the General Assembly in 2004 and the Water Control Board's regulations require local governments to develop a water supply plan or to participate in a regional water supply plan. Plans must be approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. Plans must be reviewed at least once every five (5) years and revised at least once every ten (10) years. Parties: Hampton Roads Planning District Commission & all constituent localities. Basic Premise: City agrees to participate in a regional water supply planning process that: • Ensures the long-term availability of a high quality, safe water supply for the citizens of Hampton Roads; and • Enables the localities of the Hampton Roads Region to meet local and regional water supply planning requirements A final draft Regional Water Supply Plan will be completed by August 2008 and submitted to all signatory localities for review and approval. HRPDC Responsibilities: To facilitate a consensus process leading to the development of the Regional Water Supply Plan. Local Government Responsibilities: To participate and provide agreed upon funding to support the Regional Water Supply Planning Process. Cost: • Based on the proportionate share of total regional water connections and be subject to annual appropriations from the participating localities. City cost approximately $28,000. • Financial support from state and federal agencies to be sought Duration and Termination: • Initial term is through December 31, 2011; may be extended by the parties. • Each party may withdraw from the Memorandum of Agreement and develop its own local water supply plan on ten (10) days' written notice. • May be terminated by majority vote at any time. Limitation of Liability: • No liability for damages or penalties caused by or associated with the failure of any other signatories to discharge its' duties under the Agreement; no waiver of any defenses or immunities. • No responsibility for any other locality's compliance with obligations and requirements mandated under any applicable law, regulation, administrative order, contract or agreement. Other Conditions: • Regional Water Supply Plan will not be submitted to the DEQ unless all parties agree to the Plan 2 H. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution to Upgrade the Agency License of the Department of Emergency Medical Services to Air Ambulance Classification MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The Virginia Beach Department of Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") is currently licensed as an Emergency Ground Transport Agency. In July 2006, City Council passed an ordinance to appropriate funds to cover the costs associated with customizing a police helicopter to serve as an air ambulance. To lawfully operate an air ambulance, Virginia EMS Regulations 12 VAC 5-31-420 and 470, Application and Modification of an EMS Agency License, require City Council to adopt a resolution authorizing EMS to apply for a change in the status of the City's current agency license from an Emergency Ground Transport Agency to an Emergency Ground Transport and Air Ambulance Agency. ■ Considerations: EMS cannot make an application for the modification of its Emergency Ground Transport Agency license until Council passes the required resolution. Passing such a resolution will allow the Virginia Beach Department of EMS to provide air ambulance services after the designated aircraft is properly customized. This resolution is supported by EMS, the Police Department, and Risk Management. ■ Public Information: This resolution will be advertised in the same manner as other council agenda items. ■ Attachments: Resolution. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution Submitting Department/Ag le /ncy: Department of Emergency Medical Services City Manager.r tom- . M`Z 1 A RESOLUTION TO UPGRADE THE AGENCY 2 LICENSE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY 3 MEDICAL SERVICES TO AIR AMBULANCE 4 CLASSIFICATION 5 WHEREAS, funding was appropriated by this Council in July 6 of 2006 to cover costs associated with customizing a police 7 helicopter to serve as an air ambulance; and 8 WHEREAS, the Department of Emergency Medical Services' 9 current license limits it to providing only Emergency Ground 10 Transport; and 11 WHEREAS, Virginia EMS Regulations require an ordinance from 12 the local governing jurisdiction to modify the agency license; 13 and 14 WHEREAS, it shall benefit the citizens of Virginia Beach 15 when the Department of EMS can provide Air Ambulance services. 16 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 17 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 That the Department of EMS shall make application to modify 19 its agency license to include Air Ambulance operations. 20 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 21 Virginia, on the day of APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Department of Emergency Medical Services 2006. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City orn 's f f i c e 12 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Approving an Agreement for the Delegation of the Administration of the State's Vegetation Control Permit Program to the City of Virginia Beach MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: Virginia Code Section 33.1-371.1 empowers the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner (the "Commissioner") to issue vegetation control permits allowing the selective pruning, within highways rights -of -way, of vegetation that obstructs motorists' view of signs displayed on outdoor advertising structures. Until July 1, 2006, such permits were issued by VDOT, and a locality in which a permit was sought could only object or consent to the issuance of a permit. As a result of amendments enacted during the 2006 General Assembly session, however, the Commissioner must delegate the authority to administer the vegetation control permit program to the city in which a permit is sought. Where a permit concerns a local beautification project, such as those the City currently has in place along certain roadways in the City, the applicant must submit a landscaping plan showing how the applicant will relocate or replant, at its expense, the vegetation that is the subject of the permit. The locality may impose conditions of approval of the plan that are consistent with the requirements of the statute and associated regulations. If the locality is not satisfied that the landscaping plan complies with applicable requirements, it may appeal to the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner. Conversely, the applicant may appeal to the Commissioner if it objects to the conditions imposed by the locality. ■ Considerations: The proposed Resolution sets forth the City's acceptance of the delegation of authority to administer the State's vegetation control permit program and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the agreement delegating such authority to the City. ■ Public Information: This item will be advertised as part of the City Council agenda. On December 5, 2006, the City Council received a briefing on the vegetation control permit program. ■ Alternatives: The applicable Virginia Code section is silent on the issue of whether a locality to which the program administration has been delegated may decline to accept such delegation. In light of the advantages of accepting the delegation of authority, however, it is not recommended that the City decline to approve the delegation agreement. ■ Recommendations: In light of the City Council's demonstrated strong interest in both sign regulation and City beautification, and the fact that accepting the delegation of authority to administer the vegetation control permit program on highways within the City will allow the City to have a greater measure of control over the trimming or removal trees and other plantings along the City's highways, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution. ■ Attachments: Resolution, Summary of Material Terms Recommended Action: Adoption of Resolution Submitting Department/Agency: City Attorney's Office City Manager: % `L w'', 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE 2 DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE'S 3 VEGETATION CONTROL PERMIT PROGRAM FROM THE 4 COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER TO 5 THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 6 7 8 WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 33.1-371.1 empowers the 9 Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner (the "Commissioner") to 10 issue vegetation control permits allowing the selective pruning, 11 within highways rights -of -way, of vegetation that obstructs 12 motorists' view of signs displayed on outdoor advertising 13 structures; and 14 WHEREAS, with respect to highways within certain 15 localities, including the City of Virginia Beach, the 16 Commissioner is required to delegate the administration of the 17 vegetation control permit program to the locality; and 18 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33.1-371.1, an applicant for a 19 vegetation control permit has the right to appeal any adverse 20 decision of a locality to the Commissioner within ten (10) days 21 of the date of such decision; and 22 WHEREAS, it is the sense of the City Council that it is 23 appropriate for the administration of the vegetation control 24 program for highways within the City of Virginia Beach to be the 25 responsibility of the City; 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 27 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 28 1. That the City of Virginia Beach hereby accepts the 29 delegation of authority from the Commonwealth Transportation 30 Commissioner to administer the vegetation control permit 31 program; and 32 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and 33 directed to execute, on behalf of the City, the " AGREEMENT 34 BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER AND THE 35 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR THE DELEGATION OF 36 ADMINISTRATION OF THE VEGETATION CONTROL PERMIT PROGRAM," a 37 summary of the material terms of which is hereto attached and a 38 copy of which is on file in the City Attorney's Office. 39 40 41 42 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 43 Virginia,. on the day of , 44 2006. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: �#- &Y City Attorney's Office CA-10225 OID\land use\crdres\vdot delegation agmt res.doc R-1 December 1, 2006 2 Vegetation Control Permit Program Delegation Agreement Summary of Material Terms Background: Virginia Code Section 33.1-371.1 authorizes the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner (Commissioner) to issue vegetation control permits allowing the selective pruning of trees on highways with the State. In localities such as Virginia Beach, the Commissioner must delegate that authority to the locality with respect to roadways with the territorial limits of the locality. Parties: Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner and City of Virginia Beach. Premise: Term: Commissioner delegates the authority to administer the vegetation control permit program to the City, and City accepts such delegation. Indefinite; parties may terminate by mutual agreement at any time. Plan. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER AND THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR THE DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE VEGETATION CONTROL PERMIT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT is made this 12th day of December, 2006, between the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner (the "Commissioner") and the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Section 33.1-371.1 of the Code of Virginia (the "Virginia Code"), sets forth certain requirements for the Commissioner's implementation of the vegetation control permit program; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33.1-371.1(4) of the Virginia Code, the Commissioner shall delegate the administration of Section 33.1-371.1 of the Virginia Code to a locality where the public right-of-way is within the jurisdictional limits of a city or town on a highway or street not within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 33.1-353 of the Virginia Code, and the locality shall apply the provisions of the Virginia Code; and WHEREAS, the City has public right of way within its jurisdictional limits that is not within the jurisdictional limits of the Commissioner under Section 33.1-353 of the Virginia Code, and WHEREAS, the Commissioner desires to delegate to the City, and the City desires to assume, the administration and implementation of the vegetation control permit program in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.1-371.1 of the Virginia Code; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Agreement is entered into by authorized representatives of the parties following approval by the City Council in a public meeting held on December 12, 2006. 2. The Commissioner hereby delegates to the City, and the City hereby accepts from the Commissioner, the administration and implementation of the vegetation control permit program in accordance with the provisions of Section 33.1-371.1 of the Virginia Code. 3. This Agreement may be amended or terminated at any time by the written agreement of the parties. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER David S. Ekem CITY VIRGINIA BEACH: ATTEST: City Manager City Clerk U CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Adams Outdoor Advertising Vegetation Control Permit Application MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: Virginia Code Section 33.1-371.1 allows the removal or pruning of vegetation in City rights -of -way that obstructs motorists' view of outdoor advertising signs. Adams Outdoor Advertising ("Adams"). Pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, the City has the authority to decide such applications in accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations, and subject to appeal to the Commissioner. Adams has submitted an application to remove and relocate twenty-one (21) Crape Myrtle trees from the south side of Virginia Beach Boulevard, east of Lynnshores Drive, tat obstruct the view of three of Adams' billboards. No other vegetation in the area, such as the Crape Myrtles in the median of the roadway or the low-lying shrubbery near the southern edge of pavement, is sought to be removed. As part of the application, Adams has submitted a landscaping plan showing: 1. The relocation of the trees to any location within a three-mile radius selected by the City, with a 1-year warranty of the trees in the new location; 2. The replacement of the trees by fifty-one (51) Ligustrum japonica shrubs to be installed in seventeen clusters of three shrubs each; and 3. The installation of Petite Pink Oleander shrubs around the base of the three billboards. ■ Considerations: Were it not for legislation adopted by the General Assembly in 2006, the trees would not be subject to removal. The legislation does, however, bind the City, and Adams' application meets and in some respects (e.g., the planting of Oleander shrubs around the base of the three billboards), exceeds the requirements pertaining to such permits. The application, if approved, would contain the conditions set forth in the proposed ordinance. Those conditions include: A limitation on the vegetation to be removed to the twenty-one (21) Crape Myrtle trees shown in the application; 2. The incorporation of Adams' representations in the application package regarding relocation and replacement of the trees, as well as other related conditions set forth in the proposed ordinance such as requirements that the relocation and replacement of the trees be done in a timely manner and under the direct supervision of a certified arborist; 3. A requirement for the maintenance of the vegetation by Adams, which has posted the required $2,500 surety in cash; 4. A requirement that all advertising panels of the billboards that are not in good repair be repaired or replaced and thereafter maintained in good condition; 5. The incorporation of all applicable laws and regulations. ■ Public Information: This item will be advertised as part of the City Council agenda. On December 5, 2006, the City Council received a briefing on the vegetation control permit program and on this particular application. ■ Alternatives: The City Council has two other alternatives: it may decline to act upon the application or it may deny it. If the City Council declines to act upon the application, it will be deemed by statute to have been approved, and some of the conditions imposed by the ordinance would not apply to the permit. If the City Council denies the application, it is likely that the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, acting through the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), would grant the permit on appeal. In such a case, whether the conditions of the permit, as granted by VDOT, would be as comprehensive as those set forth in the proposed ordinance is a matter of speculation. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Submitting DepartmentlAgency: City Attorney's Office City Manager: , 1 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF ADAMS 2 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING FOR A VEGETATION CONTROL 3 PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 4 CERTAIN VEGETATION LOCATED ON VIRGINIA BEACH 5 BOULEVARD AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS UPON SUCH PERMIT 6 7 8 WHEREAS, Adam Outdoor Advertising ("Adams") has submitted to 9 the City a vegetation control permit application pursuant to 10 Section 33.1-371.1 of the Virginia Code, which authorizes the 11 removal of vegetation that obstructs motorists' view of signs 12 displayed on outdoor advertising structures located on highways 13 within the Commonwealth of Virginia; and 14 WHEREAS, more particularly, such application seeks the removal 15 and relocation of twenty-one (21) Crape Myrtle trees from their 16 current location on the south side of Virginia Beach Boulevard, 17 east of Lynnshores Drive, and their replacement by certain other 18 shrubbery more particularly described in the landscaping plan 19 submitted by Adams as a part of the application; and 20 WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner has 21 delegated to the City the authority to administer, in accordance 22 with the applicable statutes and regulations, the vegetation 23 control program set forth in Virginia Code Section 33.1-371.1, and 24 the City has accepted such delegation of authority; and 25 WHEREAS, notwithstanding the opposition of the City and many 26 other persons to certain legislation introduced during the 2006 27 General Assembly session, such legislation was enacted, thereby 28 rendering all highways within the City subject to the vegetation 29 control permit program; and 30 WHEREAS, while it is the sense of the City Council that the 31 aforesaid legislation is inimical to its longstanding and abiding 32 efforts to beautify the roadways within the City of Virginia Beach, 33 the City Council is bound by the provisions of Virginia Code 34 Section 33.1-371.1 and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and 35 WHEREAS, Adams' application includes representations, among 36 others, that the Crape Myrtle trees to be removed will be 37 physically relocated to any site or sites selected by the City 38 within a radius of three (3) miles and that such trees will be 39 warranted by Adams for a period of one (1) year from the date of 40 replanting; that such Crape Myrtle trees will be replaced by fifty- 41 one (51) tree -formed Ligustrum japonica shrubs; that the base of 42 the three billboards which are the subject of the application will 43 be planted with Petite Pink Oleander shrubs; and that no trees in 44 the median of Virginia Beach Boulevard or other vegetation will be 45 removed; 46 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 47 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 48 That the City of Virginia Beach hereby grants the application 49 of Adams Outdoor Advertising for a vegetation control permit 50 submitted to the City on November 1, 2006, upon the following 51 conditions: 52 1. The vegetation to be removed shall be limited to the 53 twenty-one (21) Crape Myrtle trees designated in the application; F 54 2. Adams shall be bound by all representations made in the 55 aforesaid application and in all materials submitted in connection 56 with such application, which are hereby incorporated into and made 57 a part of this ordinance, as fully as if set forth herein. Such 58 materials consist of: 59 (a) Narrative in Support of Vegetation Control 60 Application, as revised on December 4, 2006; 61 (b) Vegetation Control Plan entitled `Bonney Road at 62 Lynnshores Adams Outdoor Advertising," prepared by 63 WPL and dated September 9, 2006; 64 (c) Billboard Planting Plans entitled "Bonney Road at 65 Lynnshores Adams Outdoor Advertising," prepared by 66 WPL and dated September 9, 2006; 67 3. All replacement vegetation shall be installed as soon 68 after the removal and relocation of the aforesaid Crape Myrtle 69 trees as is consistent with good landscaping practices, and under 70 the direct supervision of a certified arborist; 71 4. All replacement vegetation shall be maintained by Adams 72 in good condition, and any diseased, dying or dead vegetation shall 73 be replaced in a timely manner consistent with good landscaping 74 practices; 75 5. Adams shall, as soon as reasonably practicable and in no 76 event later than sixty (60) days from the date of adoption of this 77 ordinance, repair or replace, at its option, all advertising panels 3 78 of the three billboards that are chipped, peeling or otherwise in 79 poor repair, and shall thereafter maintain all such advertising 80 panels in good repair; and 81 6. Adams shall comply with all applicable laws and 82 regulations, including, without limitation, the vegetation control 83 regulations promulgated by the Commonwealth Transportation 84 Commissioner. 85 86 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 87 Virginia, on the day of , 2006. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUF ICIENCY: //I AIM C ty Attorney's Office CA-10228 OID\land use\ordres\adams vcp ordin.doc R-2 December 7, 2006 yl 68 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 69 Virginia, on this 11th day of June , 2002. 70 Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of 71 all members of the City Council. 72 CA8497 73 arppurchase/vaughan,edward/vaughanEDord.wpd 74 R-1 75 May 21, 2002 76 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL 77 SUFFICIENCY: / /' 78 Alli 79 Agricu ure Departme t LffVETepartmenL 80 APPROVED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: 81 82 Finance Department T- 3 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 interest to accrue on the unpaid principal balance of the purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on United States Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such rate of interest shall not exceed 6.25% unless the approval of the City Council by resolution duly adopted is first obtained. 2. The City Council hereby further determines that funding is available for the acquisition of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth therein. 3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the Installment Purchase Agreement and, subject to the determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon which may, in the opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment Purchase Agreement in substantially the same form and substance as approved hereby with such minor modifications, insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially alter the purchase price or manner of payment, as the City Manager or his designee shall approve. The City Council further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City to, and attest same on, the Installment Purchase Agreement. The City Council expressly authorizes the incurrence of the indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement. 4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the indebtedness under the Charter of the City rather than pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby constitutes the indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing the full faith and credit of the City. 2 1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN 2 AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND THE 3 ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS IN 4 THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $229,188 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation 6 Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the 7 City of Virginia Beach, there has been presented to the City 8 Council a request for approval of an Installment Purchase 9 Agreement (the form and standard provisions of which have been 10 previously approved by the City Council, a summary of the 11 material terms of which is hereto attached, and a true copy 12 of which is on file in the City Attorney's Office) for the 13 acquisition of the Development Rights (as defined in the 14 Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in 15 the City and more fully described in Exhibit B of the 16 Installment Purchase Agreement for a purchase price of 17 $229,188; and 18 WHEREAS, the aforesaid Development Rights shall be 19 acquired through the acquisition of a perpetual agricultural 20 land preservation easement, as defined in, and in compliance 21 with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and 22 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms 23 and conditions of the purchase as evidenced by the Installment 24 Purchase Agreement; 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 26 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 27 1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that 28 the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the 29 Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase 30 Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, 31 are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of 32 the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee is hereby 33 authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and 34 delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of Nu CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinance Authorizing and Directing the City Manager to Execute a Deed of Release and Exchange Pertaining to an Agricultural Lands Preservation Easement (Property of Edward L. Vaughan) MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: On August 28, 2002, Edward L. Vaughan, the owner of two parcels of land located on Vaughan Road, placed both parcels in the City's Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP). As part of the transaction, the property owner reserved, for future development, two (2) three -acre building sites, known as Site 1 Easement Exception and Site 2 Easement Exception. Mr. Vaughan now desires that the City release two (2) three acre building sites, shown as "PROPOSED RELOCATED EASEMENT EXCEPTION LOT A EASEMENT AREA = 130,679 SQ FT. 3.000 AC." and "PROPOSED RELOCATED EASEMENT EXCEPTION LOT B EASEMENT AREA = 130,681 SQ FT. 3.000 AC.", from the ARP Easement in exchange for placing the two (2) reserved three acre sites, known as Site 1 Easement Exception and Site 2 Easement Exception, under the ARP Easement. ■ Considerations: The attached plats show the areas that would be exchanged. The respective areas overlap and are approximately equal in area. The appraiser who appraised the property for the original ARP purchase has stated by letter dated October 26, 2006 that there is no difference in the market value of the two sites. Section 11 of the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance expressly allows exchanges of the type sought by the applicant and states that the City Council shall allow such exchanges under certain conditions. Those conditions, which are set forth in the attached ordinance as findings of the City Council, are as follows: (1) the acquisition of the proposed Preservation Easement in lieu of the existing Preservation Easement does not adversely affect the City's interests in accomplishing the purposes of the Ordinance; (2) the proposed Preservation Easement area meets all of the eligibility requirements set forth in Section 7 of the Ordinance; (3) the land to be encumbered by the proposed Preservation Easement is of at least equal fair.market value, is of greater value as permanent open space, and of as nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness and location for use as permanent open -space land as the property on which the existing Preservation Easement is located; and (4) the consideration for the acquisition of the new Preservation Easement consists solely of the extinguishment of the existing Preservation Easement. The proposed ordinance authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute a Deed of Release and Exchange pursuant to which the two 3-acre exception sites reserved for future development are exchanged for two reserved sites. Such direction is subject to the City Attorney's determination that there are no defects in title to the property to be placed under the ARP Easement or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon which may, in the opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the City's interests. ■ Public Information: No special form of advertising is required ■ Alternatives: The City Council may deny the proposed exchange if it finds that the requirements specified above have not been met. ■ Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance allowing the exchange of reserved sites. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Plats Recommended Action: Approval Submitting DepartmenVAgency: Agriculture Department City Manager: 6y�-Z 1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING 2 THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DEED OF 3 RELEASE AND EXCHANGE PERTAINING TO AN 4 AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION EASEMENT 5 LOCATED ON LAND OF EDWARD L. VAUGHAN 6 7 8 WHEREAS, on August 28, 2002, the City of Virginia Beach 9 (hereinafter the "City") and Edward L. Vaughan (hereinafter "Vaughan") 10 entered into Installment Purchase Agreement Number 2002-48, whereby the 11 City acquired an Agricultural Lands Preservation Easement (hereinafter 12 "Preservation Easement") upon certain property owned by Vaughan; and 13 WHEREAS, as part of the aforesaid transaction, Vaughan reserved for 14 future development two portions of property each having an area of 3.000 15 acres, more or less, such that the Preservation Easement does not 16 encumber the reserved areas; and 17 WHEREAS, Vaughan desires to exchange the two areas of land not 18 encumbered by the Preservation Easement for two equal areas of land 19 which are to be encumbered by the Preservation Easement, as shown on the 20 attached plats entitled "EXHIBIT SHOWING PROPOSED RELOCATED EASEMENT 21 EXCEPTION LOT A ON PROPERTY STANDING IN THE NAME OF EDWARD L. VAUGHAN 22 W.B.74, PG. 1175 FOR CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGRICULTURAL RESERVE 23 PROGRAM" and "EXHIBIT SHOWING PROPOSED RELOCATED EASEMENT EXCEPTION LOT 24 B ON PROPERTY STANDING IN THE NAME OF EDWARD L. VAUGHAN W.B.74, PG. 1175 25 FOR CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM", both plats 26 Scale 1" = 1001, both plats dated September 20, 2006, revised through 27 November 21, 2006, and both plats prepared by Patton Harris Rust & 28 Associates, Inc.; and 1 29 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11 of the Agricultural Lands 30 Preservation Ordinance (hereinafter "Ordinance"), a landowner may 31 petition the City Council for the extinguishment of a Preservation 32 Easement in exchange for the conveyance to the City of a Preservation 33 Easement on a different portion of the landowner's property, under 34 certain conditions set forth in the Ordinance; and 35 WHEREAS, the Ordinance provides that the City Council shall approve 36 such an exchange if it makes certain findings enumerated in the 37 Ordinance; and 38 WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby make such findings, to -wit: 39 (1) the acquisition of the proposed Preservation Easement in lieu of 40 the existing Preservation Easement does not adversely affect the City's 41 interests in accomplishing the purposes of the Ordinance; 42 (2) the proposed Preservation Easement areas meet all of the 43 eligibility requirements set forth in Section 7 of the Ordinance; 44 (3) the land to be encumbered by the proposed Preservation Easement is 45 of at least equal fair market value, is of greater value as permanent 46 open space, and of as nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness and 47 location for use as permanent open -space land as the property on which 48 the existing Preservation Easement is located; and 49 (4) the consideration for the acquisition of the new Preservation 50 Easement consists solely of the extinguishment of the existing 51 Preservation Easement. 2 52 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 53 VIRGINIA BEACH: 54 That subject to the determination of the City Attorney that there 55 are no defects in title to the property to be placed under the 56 Preservation Easement or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon 57 which may, in the opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the 58 City's interests, the City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized and 59 directed to execute a Deed of Release and Exchange pursuant to which the 60 City releases the existing Preservation Easement on a portion of the 61 property, as shown on the aforesaid surveys, and acquires, in exchange 62 therefore, land equal in area to be placed under the Preservation 63 Easement, as shown on such surveys. 64 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 65 Virginia, on this day of , 2006. CA-10119 VAappGcarions\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D003\Po01\00021358.DOC R-1 November 28, 2006 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: l 1, z - Agricu ture Dep . APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Vv City At orney's Office 3 r- I d 1 I,C t .,.{ � o 1.4 �I 0 or.at amr.w OW. WAVII ...... — aawrr Wm-3.00£8S y b Ca �cc J PW . •I/1 V r cd No Ssz. N - - of t?y OQD'C).- 'li-fXS 1�'bCt � ICY.., 4-j @tea ooa� �cotert - *mw Im ram I mw Rd wNtd Cd L Q: 0 k it t 1. THIS PLAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBDIVISION OF LAND. 2. THIS PLAT WAS DONE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT. 3. MERIDIAN OF THIS PLAT IS BASED ON VIRGINIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, SOUTH ZONE, NAD 83/86. I N 3415142.771 i I - E 12203299.579 N04 02 30 E EXISTING TAX 187.33' � �—`-��" PARCEL LINE N /F N/F I EDWARD L. VAUGHAN ^ EDWARD L. VAUGHAN I WB. 74, PG. 1175 z o W8. 74, PG. 1175 I DB. 4232, PG. 503 i _`N DB. 4232, PG. 503 I GPIN 2401-35-2670 GPIN 2401-35- 4006 I �7aNi I z EASEMENT LINES I a HEREBY VACATED ( VIRGINIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM O II � o 11 L I SOUTH ZONE u� p a ¢ U !n I NAD 83/86 w sis �a v W wxQQ�Q m V 1 � o oI 0zrQ1.o 0) (� EXISTING z~ inw 2 M �' I EASEMENT EXCEPTION O� ¢� ( II INSTRUIMENT N0. tx Q a II 200208303025594 (TO BE RELOCATED) i I o r II 0- oz I� w C) U ZXNz0 r N YzV) w w 00 II C p CURVE TABLE CURVE I RADIUS DELTA LENGTH 104.50 29'26'34" 53.70' C1 TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD 27.46' 1 S 10'26'04" E 1 53.11' v NO Ln Z I f a w I I N 34-15069.353 E 12203992.129 LEGEND N o PIN SET I (I i • PIN FOUND �p Gam. C 1 z 129.60' h G>�, SO4.02'30'W i t VAUGHAN ROAD PAVEMENT S30•1 (PROPOSED 50' RIW) "BYRD ACT" 37'W 4J EASEMENT LINE HEREBY VACATED EXHIBIT 100' 50' 0' 100' 200' SHOWING PROPOSED RELOCATED EASEMENT EXCEPTION LOT A SCALE 1"=100' ON PROPERTY STANDING IN THE NAME OF EDWARD L. VAUGHAN W.B. 74, PG. 1175 H °� FOR o CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH o r AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM v PAUL deC. HOLT, JR. v VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA No. 001497--8 Patton Harris Rust 8. Associates, Inc /I V /K Engineers. Surveyors. Plonners. Landscape Architects. -14 suR�� 195 Rosemont Road, Suite 101 REV. 11/21/06 + Virginia Beach, VA 23452 REV. 10/12/06 T 757.497.7472 IF 757.497,0250 REV. 10/10/06 Drown: TRD Oote: SEPTEMBER 20, 2a06 Sege 1"=100' Checked: wH8 pro} No. 14144-1-0 P:\Project\14144\1-0\Survey\Work Area\VAUGHAN—EXHIBIT.dwg 1. THIS PLAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBDIVISION OF LAND. 2_ THIS PLAT WAS DONE WITHOUT THEI BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT. 3. MERIDIAN OF THIS PLAT IS BASED bN VIRGINIA STATE PLANE STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, SOUTH ZONE) NAD 83/86. J VIRGINIA COORDINATE SYSTEM EXISTING TAX I PARCEL LINE SOUTH ZONE 1 N04'02'30'E NAD 83/86 �I 187.76' I I N /F I N 3415330.064 EDWARD L. VAUGHAN E 12203312.813 WB. 74, PG. 1175 I DB. 4232, PG_ 503 I EASEMENT LINES GPIN 2401-35-4006 I HEREBY VACATED I I� I N /F II EDWARD L. VAUGHAN I WB, 74, PG. 1175 3 J I D6. 4232, PG. 503 W GPIN 2401-35-2670 LO LO CS m �0 1I a co z u .Cc0o I UOW <L- JU co0: v ci LEGEND I jrwrl—<^o , o PIN SET ` EXISTING I{ aZO?mQ o I EASEMENT EXCEPTION J I cn w —� o ri F= o C) SITE 2 I a w to M w Z INSTRUMENT N0. I` o Q w z x— z o 200208303025594 a. w � w w w (TO BE RELOCATED) I x z Cn D I w w EASEMENT LINES i I N a ` HEREBY VACATED V) z 0 N 3 15256.646 E 12�04005.362 Ln N 3918.85' TO I 187.76' PUNGO RIDGE CT. SO4'02'37W— — VAUGHAN ROAD L� PAVEMENT (PROPOSED 50' R/W) "BYRD ACT" 100' 50' 0' 100' 200' SCALE 1 "= 100' Ok PAUL deC. HOLT, JE No. 001497-B O 6 ND svxvE�.,r 10/12/06 "^^ 10/10/06 TRQ 1 DOte: SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 EXHIBIT SHOWING PROPOSED RELOCATED EASEMENT EXCEPTION LOT B ON PROPERTY STANDING IN THE NAME OF EDWARD L. VAUGHAN W.B. 74, PG. 1175 FOR CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 195 Rosemont Road, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 T 757.497.7472 F 757.497.0250 1"=100' III`'necKea: WHB III eroy ao. 14144-1-0 P:\Project\14144\1-0\Survey\Work Area\VAUGHAN—EXHIBIT.dwg X:iProject5lARC Files\Agenda Maps\ nncess Anne —— CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinance authorizing acquisition of real property in fee simple for right of way for the Princess Anne Road Phase VII Project (CIP 2-195) and temporary and permanent easements either by agreement or condemnation. MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The Princess Anne Road Phase VII project (the "Project") will provide a four lane divided roadway, with a 143' right-of-way from General Booth Boulevard to Upton Drive, a distance of approximately 1.0 mile. Improvements at the intersections of General Booth Boulevard, Elson Green Avenue, and Upton Drive/Sandbridge Road are included with this project, as well as aesthetic upgrades. This project borders the Transition Area. The Project will improve traffic flow to address the existing and proposed residential and commercial development. In order to construct this Project, the City of Virginia Beach must acquire property and easements either by agreement or condemnation. The Project is currently budgeted to cost $10,690,000 and is fully funded in the City's Capital Improvement Program, CIP 2-195. Design is approximately 65% complete. ■ Considerations: This ordinance is for the right to acquire property and easements needed from two (2) parcels (GPIN 2414-14-1532 and 2414-13-7942) in advance of an acquisition ordinance for the rest of the project parcels. These two parcels are needed early in order to meet a deadline imposed in a court order, which gives the City beneficial presumptions should the acquisitions go to condemnation. The order was entered in a condemnation case involving the same property in connection with the construction of Elson Green Avenue to provide access to the Three Oaks Elementary School. Although the design for Princess Anne Road Phase VII Project is not complete, the plans and plats are far enough along that the acquisition needs for the two parcels listed above have been finalized. ■ Public Information: A Citizens Information Meeting was held on September 5, 2002 for this project as part of the overall Sandbridge Corridor Improvements (CIP 2-151). Once the alignment was chosen, a subsequent Citizens Information Meeting was held on May 5, 2004 specifically for the Princess Anne Road Phase VII portion. This acquisition ordinance was advertised with the Council's agenda. The affected property owner's comments and concerns were solicited and have been incorporated into the Project's design. This acquisition ordinance was advertised in The Virginian-Pilot's Legal Section in accordance with state law. ■ Alternatives: (1)Authorize acquisition of the property and easements needed to construct the Project; or (2) Do not authorize acquisition and the property and easements will have to be purchased at a higher value. ■ Recommendations: The staff recommends that City Council approve the attached acquisition ordinance, which authorizes the acquisition of the needed property and easements by agreement, or if necessary by condemnation. ■ Attachments: 1) Acquisition Ordinance 2) Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting DepartmentlAgency: Public Works City Manager �C � S tn� ev 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION 2 OF PROPERTY IN FEE SIMPLE FOR RIGHT OF 3 WAY FOR PRINCESS ANNE ROAD PHASE VII 4 PROJECT (C.I.P. 2-195) AND THE ACQUISITION s OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT 6 EASEMENTS, EITHER BY AGREEMENT OR 7 CONDEMNATION s 9 10 WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, a public 11 necessity exists for the construction of this important roadway project to reduce traffic congestion 12 and improve transportation within the City and for other related public purposes for the preservation 13 of the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and for the welfare of the people in 14 the City of Virginia Beach. 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 16 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 17 Section 1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition by purchase or condemnation 18 pursuant to Sections 15.2-1901, et seq., Sections 33.1-89, et seq., and Title 25.1 of the Code of 19 Virginia of 1950, as amended, of all that certain real property in fee simple, including temporary and 20 permanent easements (the "Property"), as shown on the acquisition plats for GPIN 2414-14-1532 and 21 2414-13-7942 and, as affecting said properties, as shown on the plans entitled "PRINCESS ANNE 22 ROAD PHASE VII, CIP NO.2-195," (the "Project") (plats and plans collectively referred to as the 23 "Plans"), the Plans being on file in the Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, City of 24 Virginia Beach, Virginia. 25 Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to make or cause to be made on behalf 26 of the City of Virginia Beach, to the extent that funds are available, a reasonable offer to the owners 27 or persons having an interest in said Property. If refused, the City Attorney is hereby authorized to 28 institute proceedings to condemn said Property. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the CA- 10162 PREPARED: 11/28/06 2006. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT �&Ws C', dA'- NATURE Pw -kwEz DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM Aai (), CITY ATTORNEY day of - 33 - Item i.J.3. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM #55871 The following registered in SUPPORT: Beverly Sizemore, 716 Centerville Turnpike, North, Chesapeake, Phone: 479-1251, employee — Kempsville Veterinary Hospital, Member — Southeastern Association of Trail Riders and owner and border of horses for over twenty (20) years. Jan Miller, 921 Beaver Dam Road, Chesapeake, Phone: 348-5899, President — Tidewater Horse Council, raised, trained and given lessons on horses for more than thirty-five (35) years. Nancy Lindsey, 236 Benson Lane, Phone: 717-3290 — General Manager — Old Dominion Carriage Company, Member of Carriage Operators of North America, Tidewater Horse Council, and 4-HRed Baron Riders. Ms. Lindsey is also a volunteer and Rehabilitator with Wildlife Response and Portsmouth Humane Shelter. Old Dominion Carriage Company had a successful pilot program this Ssummer. Debbie Hanson, 1104 Holmes Trail, Phone; 548-2692, horse owner for the last twelve (12) years, addressed the issue of horse care in Virginia Beach, which is one of the prime horse areas in Virginia. Sylvia Estes, 1628 Mill Landing Road, Phone: 721-2099, Owner of Horse Farm — Cyrus Creek Stables Kim Vaughan, Post Office Box 7116, Phone: 536-7688, Trainer/ Show Horses. Susan Pyatt, 1209 Land of Promise Road, Phone: 421-2348, current President — Southeastern Association of Trail Riders, Past President — Tidewater Horse Council, member — Atlantic Saddle Club, American and World Association of Quarter Horses, as well as National Ranch Horse Association. Nancy Perry, Executive Director — Virginia Beach Hotel/Motel Association, Phone: 428-8015 Gene Hansen, 2313 Sandfiddler Road, Phone: 721-6736, President of Virginia Horse Council (umbrella organization for all horse owner organizations in the Commonwealth of Virginia) , owner of Horse farm in Pungo, Member of the Virginia Horse Industry Board, former Chair of the Legislative Trail Ride and President — Back Bay/Pungo Civic League. The largest single agricultural aspect in Virginia Beach is the horse industry. There are 3,000 horses in Virginia Beach. The following registered in OPPOSITION: Jackie Yergeriio, 501 Front Street, Norfolk, Phone: 962-8285, Animal and Entertainment specialist - PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) Victoria Carey, 4980 Cypress Point Circle, Phone: 270-4508 Carrie Edwards, 1503 Roydle Terrace, (904) 699-7097, resident of Norfolk, cared for and owned horses for twenty (20) years. Bob Chorush, PETA, 4717 Larkin Street, Norfolk, Phone: 753-111 expressed concern relative the new proposals and verification of employees Jayne Santell-Fearn, 4406 East Honeygrove Court, Phone: 226-8695 Laura Yanne, 2225 B Beech Street, Phone: (781) 771-2405 Debra Edwards, Phone: 463-9131 December 5, 2006 -34- Item V.J.3. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES ITEM#55971 (Continued) Upon motion by Councilman Uhrin, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council DEFERRED until the City Council Session of December 12, 2006. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to issue Franchise Agreements to Old Virginia Carriage Co., LLC, from November 15, 2006 to April 15, 2007, re: a. Guided horse tours on the sand beach between Rudee Inlet and 42"d Street b. Horse-drawn carriage rides on the Boardwalk Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: William R. "Bill" DeSteph, Robert M. Dyer, Barbara M. Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, John E. Uhrin, Ron A. Villanueva and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Harry E. Diezel and Rosemary Wilson December 5, 2006 -36- Item VL8.a/b. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES ITEM #55773 The following registered in SUPPORT. - Nancy Lindsay, General Manager — Old Virginia Carriage Company, advised Dr. Fred Sweeney oversees her horses on a regular basis. Because of her excellent horse management skills, Ms. Lindsay was hired as General Manager. These horses are very well cared for and love to work. Old Virginia Carriage Company is a Limited Liability company located on 771h Street. Mike Eason, Resort Coordinator— Convention and Visitors Bureau, advised City Council approved a Pilot program re horse rides on the Oceanfront from March 28 through May 7, 2006. This ordinance was amended to allow horses during the winter months only. The horse rides commence at 11: 00 A.M. to sunset. The Carriage ridesl commence at 5: 00 P.M to 11: 00 P.M. (only 3 days per week November First to April Fifteenth) Mayor Oberndorf referenced the November 7, 2006, correspondence from Sharon Quillen Adams, Executive Director — Virginia Beach SPCA, re opposition to the introduction of this "activity" in Virginia Beach. The correspondence contained questions which have not been asked or answered. Said Information is hereby made apart of the record. The following speakers registered in OPPOSITION Heidi Parker, 1131 Antietam Court, Phone: 962-8522, husband in the Navy and she related his experiences re the carriage horses in Boston. Their unhappiness is in their eyes. There is much entertainment available at the Resort i.e. the bike rides and it is not necessary to have horse tours or carriage rides. Bob Chorush, 501 Front Street, Norfolk, Phone: 213-8727, speaking on behalf of 484 members of PETA Jaume Rivell, ex Police Officer in New Hope, Pennsylvania. Ms. Rivell spoke concerning the harm to horses with the carriage rides, 1802 Sheringham, Phone; 412-2114 Amy McNally, represented the Virginia Beach Societyfor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), 1557 Back Bay Landing, Phone; 644-5577. Debbie Chissell, 925 Shadow Tree Way, Phone: 943-7430, did not want her 7-year old daughter in danger because of the horses Debra Edward, 3836 Croonenbergh Way, Phone: 463-9131, stated animals should not perform for tourists. A MOTION was made by Councilman Uhrin, seconded by Vice Mayor Jones to ADOPT: Ordinances to GRANT franchises to Old Virginia Carriage Co., LLC from November 15, 2006 to April 15, 2007 re: Guided horse tours on the sand beach between Rudee Inlet and 42nd Street Horse-drawn carriage rides on the Boardwalk November 7, 2006 ��; 0 <y 10 a. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Proposal Allowing the City Manager to Issue a Franchise Agreement to Allow for Horse Rides on the Beach and Carriage Rides on the Boardwalk from November 1 to April 15. MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: On February 28, 2006 City Council approved a pilot program to allow the Convention and Visitors Bureau the opportunity to evaluate horse rides on the beach and carriage rides on the boardwalk before requesting a permanent franchise to operate during the winter months. Based on City Councils actions, City Code Section 6-12 was modified to allow horse rides on the beach under a Special Event Permit until February 28, 2007. The pilot program was conducted between March 15th and May 4th involving 7 horses walking single file on the beach between 30th and 17th Street. During the same period, a pilot program with horse drawn carriage rides on the boardwalk under a Special Event Permit was evaluated which did not require a modification of any city ordinance. The response to both programs was very positive and we received many positive emails from visitors regarding their experience. The Resort Advisory Commission, Virginia Beach Hotel/Motel Association, Virginia Beach Restaurant Association and Virginia Beach Retail Association have written letters in support of continuing the program on permanent bases during the winter months. On September 5, 2006 City Council approved an amendment to City Code Section 6-12 to allow horses on the beach between November 1st and April 15th either by Special Event Permit or Franchise. On October 6, 2006 the City Purchasing Department issued an invitation to bid to solicit franchise proposals to operate the horse trail rides and carriage ride. Responses to the invitation to bid were evaluated by a selection committee and a qualified organization was selected which met the qualifications of the proposed franchise. This matter was discussed by City Council on November 7th, 2006 and due to a tie vote the franchise was not approved. Since that date, staff has met with representatives of the SPCA and has prepared additional conditions to be applied to the operation of the franchise. This matter was then placed on council's December 5th agenda at the request of Councilmember Diezel. On December 5`h, Council voted to defer the ordinances to December 12th ■ Considerations: The proposal would allow the City Manager to execute franchise agreements with Old Virginia Carriage Co., LLC for horse rides on the beach and carriage rides on the boardwalk from November 1 to April 15. Approval of these franchises will provide an additional amenity for visitors and residents visiting the resort area in the winter months. ■ Public Information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal process involving the advertisement of the City Council agenda. Public comment was received by Council during its December 5th meeting, and the public also may comment during the December 121h meeting. ■ Resort Advisory Commission Recommendation: Adoption Staff Recommendation: Approval ■ Attachments: Ordinance (2), Summary of Contract Terms (2), Franchise Operating Standards and Carriage Operators of North America Guidelines and Standards of Operation Submitting Department/Agency: Convention & Visitors Bureau City Manager:<Z�" �` Carriage Operators of North America Page 1 of 6 Appendix A CARRIAGE OPERATORS OF NORTH AMERICA GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS OF OPERATION Adopted March 1, 1991 Revised February 26, 2003 Carriage Operators of North America maintains that facilities, businesses and individuals striving to follow these Guidelines and Standards will promote a safer and more humane environment for horse-drawn carriage activities. By establishing these Guidelines and Standards, CONA does not mean to suggest that these are the only ways in which to promote safety. Nor does CONA suggest or infer that those who do not follow these Guidelines and Standards engage in unsafe practices. In addition, CONA makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in these Guidelines and Standards. CONA cannot guarantee that adherence to these Guidelines and Standards will guarantee no accidents, injuries, or litigation. These Guidelines and Standards are intended to assist businesses and/or individuals in developing an individualized program designed to promote safety and humane treatment of carriage animals. I. Definitions II. Horse and Carriage Company Owners III. Equipment IV. Carriage Stands, Client Pick Up Locations, and Staging Areas V. Care and Shelter of Horses VI. Harness VII. Weather Conditions VHL Feeding IX. Stables and Stalls X. Horse Drawn Carriage Driver Qualifications XI. Conduct of Drivers Preface It is well known that horse drawn operations attract both tourists and residents of any city in which they work. They are highly visible, image oriented businesses that help cities and towns promote a good image. Because of this high visibility, carriage operations are constantly under scrutiny and this scrutiny soon becomes legislation. CONA, an organization that promotes the safe use of horses and horse drawn vehicles on the streets of America, has developed these Guidelines and Standards of Operation with the welfare and safety of the horse, the passengers, the operators and the general public in mind. They have also been developed to allow the carriage operator enough latitude to run a quality operation of which the city or town where the operator works can be proud. I. Definitions: The following_ terms shall have the following meanings : 1. "Carriage", means any device in or upon which any person is or may be transported or drawn, designed to be or capable of being drawn by a file://X:\Resort Management\Resort Admin\Horse Carriage Operators of North America.... 11/28/2006 Carriage Operators of North America Page 2 of 6 horse or horses. 2. "Horse", means any animal of the genus equus. 3. "Person", means an individual, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity. 4. "Stable", means any place, establishment or facility where one or more horses are housed and maintained. 5. "Veterinarian", means a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine. 6. "Work". A horse is considered working when it is out of the stable and at its carriage stand, place where it regularly picks up passengers or place of hire. Work ends when the horse leaves its stand or place of hire to go to the stable. 7. "New driver", is a person that, prior to hire, has never been licensed for or driven for a commercial horse drawn carriage company. II. Horse and Carriage Company Owners A. Each carriage company should have written permission, permits, or a business license as required for the area in which it works. B. Owners should have prior experience and qualifications, which enable them to properly and humanely operate a horse drawn carriage business. C. Each carriage company should carry liability insurance, whether or not required by local or state ordinance. D. Each carriage company should maintain an emergency procedure and protocol package including the telephone number where the owner or manager may be contacted in case of an emergency. III. Equipment Each vehicle should be equipped with electric turn signals or emergency flashing lights, tail lights and front lights which are visible for a distance of 500 feet. (Variance allowed if an automobile with emergency flashers follows the carriage and if appropriate, leads the carriage.) A. No company should use a carriage not equipped with brakes. (Variance allowed for vintage carriages using appropriate harness.) B. Each carriage should be equipped with a slow moving vehicle emblem to be attached to the rear of the vehicle whenever there is a reasonable possibility that the vehicle could encounter automotive traffic on roadways. C. Carriages should be properly lubricated and wheels should spin freely. D. Carriages used on public property should be equipped with a device to catch horse manure and prevent it from falling on the pavement. Missed droppings should be cleaned up at the end of each shift. E. Each carriage should be maintained in a reasonably safe and sanitary condition. F. No horse drawn carriage should carry more passengers than it was originally designed to carry. G. No one other than the driver, a company employee, or apprentice should sit in the driver's seat. H. Each company should conduct regular safety inspections of its vehicles. I. No vehicle should be allowed into service that has lights, brakes or file://X:\Resort Management\Resort Admin\Horse Carriage Operators of North America.... 11/28/2006 Carriage Operators of North America Page 3 of 6 other safety features that are inoperable. If lights become faulty during use, a car with emergency flashers on should follow and, if appropriate, lead the carriage until it can be safely removed from traffic. J. Carriages should be equipped with fifth wheel or cut under turning mechanisms on the front axle. (Variance allowed for vintage carriages.) K. Each company is encouraged to use reflective material wherever appropriate on carriages, harness and horse. L. Radio equipped carriages are encouraged. Cell phone equipped carriages should keep incoming call rings low. IV. Carriage Stands Client Pick Up Locations, and Stagg Areas Carriage companies should keep carriage stands/usage areas reasonably clean and free of manure and urine at all times. Urine should be diluted with water or water with disinfectant as it occurs. A. Water for the horses should be maintained in full view at all times if the horse will be working from that location for more than 1-lh hours. B. Stand signage should include rates and hours of operation. Equine Activity Liability Act warning signs should be posted as may be required under applicable state law. C. Stands should be limited to parking only horse drawn vehicles to prohibit other vehicles from parking there. D. Stand site should be reasonably safe, have good footing, lighting and space for horses, carriages, and the public, preferably free of automotive traffic. V. Care and Shelter of Horses No horse should be used to draw a carriage unless the animal is in good health and the following standards are met: 1. The horse should not have open sores or wounds, nor should such horse be noticeably lame or have any other ailments, unless the driver has in the driver's possession a written statement by a veterinarian that the horse is fit for such work, notwithstanding such condition. 2. The hooves of the horse while working on pavement, brick, concrete or other like hard surfaces should be properly shod utilizing rubber or elastomer shoes or pads to prevent concussion injuries. Borium tip shoes can be utilized to help prevent slipping. Metal shoes can be used on the rear legs of the horse, if the horse's hooves will not accommodate the use of rubber pads there. 3. The horse should be properly and appropriately groomed. 4. The horse should have adequate flesh and tone. 5. Horses should be kept in a working condition. F. Every horse in use by a horse drawn carriage company should have a certificate of serviceability for specified carriage work, signed by the examining veterinarian on an annual basis. G. Horses should be de -wormed regularly. H. Horses should be vaccinated under the direction of a veterinarian for appropriate file://X:\Resort Management\Resort Admin\Horse Carriage Operators of North America.... 11/28/2006 Carriage Operators of North America Page 4 of 6 diseases and risk factors of the area. I. Horses used to pull carriages should have water made available to them during their work period if their work period is in excess of 1 V2 hours. I Horses should not work more than eight consecutive hours, or ten hours with a 1 'h hour break, disconnected from the carriage, in a 24-hour period. K. Horses should not work more than six days in a seven-day period. L. Horses should not be worked with equipment causing an impairment of vision, other than normal blinders. M. Horses drawing a carriage should not be worked at a speed faster than a slow trot N. Horses should not be subject to any cruel or harassing treatment. O. Carriage horses should not be sold or disposed of except in a humane manner. VI. Harness Horses should not be worked with harness or bits that are not safe and humane. A. The harness should be oiled and cleaned so as to be appropriately in reasonable condition. B. Harness, bridles, bits and padding should be properly fitted and kept in reasonably clean and good repair. C. The harness should be kept reasonably free of makeshifts like wire, rope, and rusty chain. VII. Weather Conditions Owners and drivers should use caution when working horses in adverse weather conditions such as snow, ice, heavy rain, and other slippery or reduced visibility situations. A. Companies and drivers should work horses only when reasonably safe weather conditions exist. When the sum of the Fahrenheit temperature and the humidity is equal to 150, caution should be used. At a total of 180, care steps should be taken for the prevention of heat stress. B. Companies and drivers should work horses only when reasonably safe weather conditions exist. Special attention and discretion should be used during periods of high humidity, extreme cold and wind chill. Proper shoes should be used during icy conditions. C. Horses should be properly acclimated to the weather environment they will be working in, including special shoeing for conditions known to be icy. VIII. Feeding Horses should receive adequate and substantial feed daily, which is free from contamination. The feed should be sufficient quantity, nutritive value, and frequency to meet normal daily requirements for the condition, special needs, environmental factors and size of the animal so as to maintain a healthy flesh. A. Clean drinking water should be available to an off duty horse at all times. B. Off duty horses should have access to salt in block or loose form. IX. Stables and Stalls Stables used for housing horses should be well lighted and ventilated and provide protection from the weather. Stables should be kept clean and in good repair and manure should be removed daily. Any enclosure where horses are kept should be graded and raked to keep the surface file://X:\Resort Management\Resort Admin\iorse Carriage Operators of North America.... 11/28/2006 Carriage Operators of North America Page 5 of 6 reasonably dry. A. Foot hazards and sharp surfaces should not be permitted in any area or building where they may come in contact with the animals. B. Roofs should be kept free of leaks that drain into areas where animals are kept- C. Box stalls should be large enough for the horse to lie down and turn around. D. Tie stalls should be a minimum width and length to allow the horse to safely lie down. E. Horses that are not worked at least every other day or not turned out daily should not be kept in tie stalls. F. Stalling spaces should be bedded or have a specialized surface as to keep animals clean, dry and free of concussion, abrasion or pressure points. G. A pest control program should be used to control flies and other insects. H. Feed should be kept free of contamination. I. Interior and exterior areas of the stable should be kept reasonably clean, properly drained and free of nuisances including, but not limited to unreasonable and excessive odors and unreasonable accumulation of refuse and excrement. J. There should be no smoking at any time in stables. K. Cities and other municipalities should make every effort to allow stables within a walking distance of carriage stands for the health and well being of the horse. L. Equine Activity Liability Act warning signs should be posted in stables where applicable under state law. X. Horse Drawn Carriage Driver Qualifications Each driver should have a valid motor vehicle driver license and social security card or work visa. A. Each driver should be at least 18 years of age. B. Each driver should be free of alcohol and drug addiction. C. Each driver should demonstrate his or her ability to drive, inspect and care for the horse and equipment. D. Carriage company owners and managers should have a practical exam to give to drivers which they should successfully complete. The driver should demonstrate proficiency in grooming the horse, cleaning the harness and padding, fitting the bridle, bit and harness to the horse, hitching the horse to the carriage and driving the carnage upon the city streets in a safe and humane fashion. E. New drivers should be required to complete a thorough driver training program, administered by the company or another qualified professional, and to serve as an apprentice. New drivers should be required to ride with a seasoned driver for at least 24 hours to observe the proper handling and driving of a horse drawn carriage and the methods of handling emergency situations or unexpected animal behavior. The new driver should drive a carriage under supervision of a seasoned driver for at least 16 hours of apprenticeship. XI. Conduct of Drivers Each driver should have his or her valid state issued driver's license in his or her possession while operating a carriage. A. The driver should obey all traffic laws and regulations of the city and state. B. Drivers should not operate a carriage while under the influence of alcohol or narcotic file://X:\Resort Management\Resort Admin\Horse Carriage Operators of North America.... 11/28/2006 Carriage Operators of North America Page 6 of 6 drugs. C. No person should drink alcohol while such person is operating a horse drawn vehicle. D. For optimum safety and control of the horse and carriage, drivers should be prohibited from smoking, eating or wearing of headphones while the carriage is in motion. E. Drivers of each carriage during travel from sunset until sunrise, and at all other times as conditions of poor visibility exist, should cause the front and tail lights of the carriage to be in operation. F. Drivers should not permit the speed at which any horse drawn carriage is driven to exceed a slow trot. G. No driver should abandon his carriage, permit another to drive for him or her, except an apprentice, or permit any passenger to ride on the driver's seat. H. Drivers should not permit more passengers in a carriage than it has been designed for. I. No passenger should be permitted to stand or ride on any part of the carriage while in motion, except seated inside the carriage. Drivers should take all necessary precautions to prohibit such activity. All passengers should be seated except when loading or unloading. I Drivers should at all times be responsible for the proper and humane care and treatment of the horse under his or her direct supervision and control. K. Drivers should at all times be dressed neatly and cleanly, with an appropriate costume or uniform preferred. L. Drivers should be in the driver's seat and have driving lines in hand, and foot firmly on the brake before loading or unloading passengers. M. No one should unbridle a horse while the horse is connected to any horse drawn vehicle. N. Drivers should regularly offer water to working horses. file://X:\Resort Management\Resort Admin\Horse Carriage Operators of North America.... 11/28/2006 Horse and Carriage Franchise Operating Standards The following operating standards are hereby a part of the Franchise Agreement for Guided Horse Riding Tours on the Beach and the Franchise Agreement for Horse Carriage Rides on the Boardwalk. 1. All operators, drivers, stable hands, veterinarians and others who are employed by the franchisee, shall sign a statement indicating that they have never been convicted of animal neglect or cruelty. 2. The franchisee's veterinarian will certify the fitness of all horses. Such cetification will be filed with the city at least semi annual basis, filing that certificate with the City so that it will be a part of a public record. 3. All complaints of any nature, along with all veterinary records, will be available for public review. 4. A committee comprised of representatives of the Virginia Beach Animal Control Bureau, Virginia Beach Police Department Mounted Patrol, Department of Agriculture and Resort Management Office will conduct random inspections of the operation, health of the animals and boarding conditions for compliance with these Operating Standards and standards outlined in the franchise agreement. 5. A waste management plan for the Bike Path, Boardwalk and Beach will be filed by the franchisee as part of the agreement 6. Horses used for guided tours will not be used for carriage rides tour, or vice versa, during a 24 hour period. 7. All complaints of potential animal health or animal cruelty issues will be forwarded to the Resort Management Office for investigation by the inspection committee comprised of representatives from Animal Control, Dept of Agriculture, Police and the Resort Management Office. Depending on the severity of the complaint, a veterinarian report may be required at the franchisee expense. A written response to the complaint will be made within 14 days. Requested by Councilmember Diezel 1 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO OLD 2 VIRGINIA CARRIAGE CO., LLC TO CONDUCT 3 GUIDED HORSE TOURS ON THE SAND BEACH 4 BETWEEN RUDEE INLET AND 42ND STREET 5 6 WHEREAS, the City staff has solicited proposals for the 7 operation of guided horse tours on the sand beach between Rudee 8 Inlet and 42nd street between the dates of November 15, 2006 and 9 April 15, 2007 (the initial term) with the possibility of 10 extending the right to operate for up to four (4) additional 11 terms; 12 WHEREAS, the City staff has reviewed all proposals and has 13 made a recommendation to the City Council that a franchise be 14 awarded to Old Virginia Carriage Co., LLC; and 15 WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the recommendation of 16 the City staff and finds that the award of a franchise to Old 17 Virginia Carriage Co., LLC will promote the public interest and 18 will serve to enhance the festive atmosphere at the oceanfront. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 20 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 21 1. That a franchise is hereby granted to Old Virginia 22 Carriage Co., LLC to operate guided horse tours on the sand 23 beach between Rudee Inlet and 42nd Street. 24 2. That the grant of the franchise is subject to the terms 25 of the Franchise Agreement which has been presented to the City 26 Council and the terms of the Invitation to Bid which were 27 disseminated for this proposal. 28 3. That the City Manager or his designee is authorized to 29 executed the Franchise Agreement which is hereby approved. 30 31 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 32 Virginia on the day of , 2006. Approved as to Content a Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: Ad&A146� �-onvenLion ana visitors Cit Attorney's Office Bureau CA10200 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D030\P001\00022815.DOC November 28, 2006 R-2 2 GUIDED HORSE TOURS Summary of Contract Terms Franchisee: Old Virginia Carriage Co., LLC Nature of Franchise: Guided horseback rides on sand beach between Rudee Inlet and 42nd Street. Term: Initial term is November 15, 2006 through April 15, 2007. By agreement of both parties, the Agreement may be extended for up to four (4) additional terms, each running from November 15 to April 15 of the next year. Franchise Fee: $2,500 for the initial term. If the Agreement is extended for additional terms, the parties must agree to a new fee and state the fee in a separate writing before November 1 of the year of the new term. Non Exclusive Franchise: The City is authorized to grant other franchises in the subject area. Operational Criteria: The Agreement stipulates operational standards and safeguards such as: • Appropriate training of operators • Walking pace for horses • Limit of nine (9) horses on a tour • City must review and approve an operating plan which recognizes different experience levels of riders • Horses must have appropriate ability, training and demeanor • Helmets required • Bun Bags to be used • Manure collected and disposed • Horses to be rabies free and have negative Coggins certifications • Temporary corral • No unloading on Boardwalk • Equipment to be in good condition • No solicitations on public property • Operator must be employee of Franchisee and operator must be with tour patrons at all times • Employees to wear attire which identifies the tour operation • No advertisement other than the name of the operation and the fee and location of the tour station shall be placed on the property Hold Harmless: Franchise indemnifies and holds harmless the City for loss and liability. Insurance: $2,000,000 combined single limits Termination: City may terminate Agreement for reason of Franchisee's failure to comply with the terms of the Agreement. Requested by Councilmember Diezel 1 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO OLD 2 VIRGINIA CARRIAGE CO., LLC TO CONDUCT A HORSE 3 CARRIAGE RIDE ON THE BOARDWALK 4 5 WHEREAS, the City staff has solicited proposals for the 6 operation of horse-drawn carriage rides on the Boardwalk 7 between the dates of November 15, 2006 and April 15, 2007 (the 8 initial term) with the possibility of extending the right to 9 operate for up to four (4) additional terms; 10 WHEREAS, the City staff has reviewed all proposals and 11 has made recommendation to the City Council that a franchise 12 be awarded to Old Virginia Carriage Co., LLC; and, 13 WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the recommendation 14 of the City staff and finds that the award of a franchise to 15 Old Virginia Carriage Co., LLC will promote the public 16 interest and will serve to enhance the festive atmosphere at 17 the oceanfront. 18 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 19 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 20 1. That a franchise is hereby granted to Old Virginia 21 Carriage Co., LLC to operate a horse carriage ride operation 22 on the Boardwalk at the oceanfront. 23 2. That the grant of the franchise is subject to the 24 terms of the Franchise Agreement which has been presented to 25 the City Council and the terms of the Invitation to Bid which 26 were disseminated for this proposal. 27 28 29 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of Approved as to Content: Convention & Visitor Bureau 2006. Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: CPI i Attorney' s Office CA10199 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D030\P001\00022816.DOC November 28, 2006 R-2 2 HORSE CARRIAGE RIDES Summary of Contract Terms Franchisee: Old Virginia Carriage Co., LLC Nature of Franchise: To conduct horse carriage rides on the Boardwalk. Term: Initial term is November 15, 2006 through April 15, 2007. By agreement of both parties, the Agreement may be extended for up to four (4) additional terms, each running from November 15 to April 15 of the next year. Franchise Fee: $1,500 for the initial term. If the Agreement is extended for additional terms, the parties must agree to a new fee and state the fee in a separate writing before November 1 of the year of the new term. Non Exclusive Franchise: The City is authorized to grant other franchises in the subject area. Operational Criteria: The Agreement stipulates operational standards and safeguards such as: • Appropriate training of operators • Good condition of equipment • Walking pace for horses • Limit of two (2) carriages on Boardwalk at any time • Rubber shoes on horses • Safety equipment • Bun Bags on horses • Horses to be rabies free and have negative Coggins certifications • Temporary corral • No unloading from trailers on Boardwalk • Operator must be employee of Franchisee and be present with patrons at all times • Employees to wear attire which identifies the tour operation • No advertisement other than the name of the operation and the fee and location of the tour station shall be placed on the property Hold Harmless: Franchisee indemnifies and holds harmless the City for loss and liability. Insurance: $2,000,000 combined single limits Ten-nination: City may terminate Agreement for reason of Franchisee's failure to comply with the terms of the Agreement. 0� 3E)OWB NOONOI ci Y - U w f� z 0 PAYS w z 3 ''Ovl CO' Q 11l � 0 'o Z X LIJ ^I uj E.J co Z QC? N LO 0 w4 J a. ca Q QU (� J W CD �P � CO 4 Q 0 N 0 1 � ro 4u: :S) ej CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Transfer $421,810 to CIP #2-073, Buckner Boulevard Extended, to Fund the City's Portion of a Cost Participation Agreement and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement for the Extension of Buckner Boulevard MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The Buckner Boulevard Extended project (CIP #2-073) will provide for the extension of Buckner Boulevard, from the intersection of Holland Road and Shipps Comer Road, west a distance of approximately 1000 feet. Improvements will provide for a four -lane divided roadway, transitioning at the western end, to a two-lane roadway to match the proposed roadway section within the Buckner Farms Subdivision. A multi -use path is included in the project. This project will assist in relieving traffic congestion along the Dam Neck Road corridor between London Bridge Road and Princess Anne Road by providing an alternate east -west corridor to Rosemont Road, London Bridge Road, South Independence Boulevard and Holland Road. It also will facilitate a means for improved access to the currently undeveloped commercial property located at the corner of Holland Road and the proposed extension of Buckner Boulevard. Colonial Self Storage ("CSS") is the owner of the property located at the proposed intersection of Buckner Boulevard and Holland Road. Right-of-way dedication is needed from CSS in order to construct the proposed extension of Buckner Boulevard. CSS is interested in developing its property and would like the Buckner Boulevard Extended project completed to provide access to its development. Commercial access off the proposed Buckner Boulevard extension is preferred to minimize disruption of traffic flow along Holland Road. Public Storage ("PS") is the owner of another portion of property that is needed to construct the extension of Buckner Boulevard. PS has agreed to sell this property to CSS, which in turn will dedicate it to the City, along with other property necessary for the extension. Baymark Construction Corporation ("Baymark"), the developer of the Buckner Farms subdivision, as a condition of subdivision approval, agreed to dedicate the right-of-way and construct Buckner Boulevard from Rosemont Road to the eastern limits of the subdivision, a distance of approximately 4000 feet. Baymark constructed the portion of Buckner Boulevard necessary to provide access to its subdivision (approximately 1900 feet) and agreed to provide surety for the cost of the remainder of the improvements until such time as the City proceeded with construction of the extension of Buckner Boulevard to Holland Road. The City now desires to have Baymark complete their portion of Buckner Boulevard concurrent with the construction of the Buckner Boulevard Extended project in order to have the entire roadway segment completed and open to the public at the same time. ■ Considerations: An agreement has been developed whereby CSS will dedicate all of the right-of-way required for construction of the Buckner Boulevard Extended project, including the property to be acquired from PS. In exchange, the City will pay for 100% of the design and Page 1 of 2 construction of the project. Baymark has indicated its willingness to construct its required portion and the Buckner Boulevard Extended project concurrently. The City will reimburse Baymark for the "City" portion. Funding in the amount of $1,595,907 is currently available in CIP #2-073. The City's current cost estimate is $2,017,717. An additional $421,810 is required to complete the project. The increase in the project cost estimate is primarily due to the substantial increase in roadway construction costs over the past few years. It is proposed that the additional funding come from Lynnhaven Parkway —Phase XI (CIP #2-167). The transfer of funds from this project, which currently is not fully funded, will not have a significant impact on the current project schedule, as VDOT has deferred construction of this project beyond 2012. Future restoration of funds will be necessary to prevent a delay in construction of this project. ■ Public Information: Information regarding this CIP project was presented to the public during the CIP approval process. In addition, a Citizen's Information Meeting will be held during the design phase of the project. ■ Recommendations: It is recommended that Council adopt the ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into the Buckner Boulevard Cost -Participation Agreement and transferring $421,810 to CIP #2-073. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Engineering City Manage . V_ I Page 2 of 2 I AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $421,810 TO CIP #2- 2 073, BUCKNER BOULEVARD EXTENDED, TO FUND THE 3 CITY'S PORTION OF A COST -PARTICIPATION 4 AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO 5 EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT FOR THE EXTENSION OF 6 BUCKNER BOULEVARD 7 8 9 WHEREAS, the City is seeking to enter into an agreement 10 with Baymark Construction Corporation, Colonial Self Storage, and 11 Public Storage for constructing the extension of Buckner Boulevard 12 to connect with Shipps Corner Road, with the City to pay its 13 proportionate share; and 14 WHEREAS, an additional $421,810 is needed to fully fund 15 the City's portion of the project costs. 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 17 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 (1) That $421,810 from CIP #2-167, Lynnhaven Parkway- 19 Phase XI, is hereby transferred to CIP #2-073, Buckner Boulevard 20 Extended, to fund the City's portion of a cost -participation 21 agreement. 22 (2) That the City Manager is hereby authorized to 23 execute a cost -participation agreement for the extension of Buckner 24 Boulevard in form and substance acceptable to the City Manager and 25 the City Attorney. 26 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 27 Virginia, on the day of 1 2006. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: anag keir� ervices APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's 0 ice CA10221 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D028\P001\00023953.DOC R-2 November 29, 2006 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Transfer $350,000 from Reserve for Contingencies to the Department of Economic Development's FY 2006-07 Operating Budget for Operating Costs Associated with the TPC Golf Course MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The City of Virginia Beach leased the land that is now the site of the Tournament Players Club at Virginia Beach to the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority ("VBDA") in 1997. The VBDA then entered into a sublease agreement with the Tournament Players Club of Virginia Beach, L.L.C. ("TPC") in October 1997 for the purposes of developing and operating the TPC golf course. The term of the sublease is for 40 years, expiring in 2037, and the sublease payments are $246,000 per year less taxes collected. TPC built the golf course and club facility (at an estimated cost of $15 million) and opened for play in 1999. On October 3, 2006, the City Council requested and recommended that the VBDA terminate its sublease and acquire the golf facility located at Princess Anne Road from TPC. As part of the agreement to acquire the golf course, the City and the VBDA may request that TPC manage the golf course through March 31, 2007. ■ Considerations: The City is currently reviewing responses to a Request for Proposals to manage the golf course operations. To ensure the selection of a quality golf course operator and allow sufficient time for the operator to mobilize necessary resources to begin operating the golf course, TPC will continue managing the golf course through March 31, 2007. The VBDA will enter into an agreement with TPC for the continued management of the golf course. The VBDA will invoice the City for the cost of operations. TPC and the City project the City's contribution at approximately $220,000 for the three months of operation, but given weather conditions and other factors, the TPC and the City jointly developed the budget to not exceed $350,000. Any remaining funding will be returned to Reserve for Contingencies at the end of the first quarter of calendar year 2007. The source of funding the management arrangement is a transfer of $350,000 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Department of Economic Development for the purpose of funding VBDA's management agreement with TPC. This transfer will leave the Reserve for Contingencies with no remaining funds. ■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal agenda process. ■ Alternatives: An alternative would be to close the golf course on January 1st until a golf course operator can be selected. Even if this alternative is selected, the City estimates that it would cost approximately $83,000 to ensure the club house and golf course are operational during the first quarter. This approach would also impact local golfers who would have one less golf venue available for use. Additionally, this "caretaker" status would result in additional expenses to "resurrect" the course when it is put back into service. ■ Recommendations: Transfer $350,000 from Reserve for Contingencies to the Department of Economic Development to provide funding to the VBDA for TPC to continue operating the golf course through March 31, 2007. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Summary of Terms of agreement between VBDA and TPC Recommended Action: Approval of attached ordinance. Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Economic Development City Manager• 1 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $350,000 FROM 2 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES TO THE 3 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT'S FY 4 2006-07 OPERATING BUDGET FOR OPERATING 5 COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TPC GOLF 6 COURSE 7 8 WHEREAS, the Tournament Players Club of Virginia Beach, 9 L.L.C. ("TPC L.L.C.") has a contractual obligation to operate 10 the TPC course through December 29, 2006; and 11 WHEREAS, arrangements for the future operation of the 12 course beyond December 29, 2006 have not been finalized; and 13 WHEREAS, after December 29, 2006, the course will be owned 14 by the Virginia Beach Development Authority ("VBDA"); and 15 WHEREAS, TPC L.L.C. has agreed to continue operations of 16 the course through March 31, 2007, subject to certain 17 contractual payments from the VBDA. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 19 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 20 1. That the City Council hereby requests the VBDA to 21 extend the management agreement between TPC L.L.C. and the VBDA 22 for the operation of the TPC course through March 31, 2007, 23 consistent with the summary of terms attached hereto. 24 2. That $350,000 is hereby transferred from Reserve for 25 Contingencies to the Department of Economic Development's FY 26 2006-07 Operating Budget for costs associated with the Virginia 27 Beach Development Authority's agreement with TPC for the 28 continued operation of the TPC golf course through March 31, 29 2007. 30 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 31 Virginia on the day of APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ,'P'j I Q � � " Management Services 2006. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney' s1,10f f ice CA10229 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D006\P001\00024566.DOC R-4 December 7, 2006 TPC INTERIM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT SUMMARY OF TERMS Commencement date: December 29, 2006. Initial Term: December 29, 2006 to March 31, 2007. Renewal Term: One (1) thirty (30) day renewal at the option of the VBDA Management Fee: None. Standards: Facility will be operated and maintained as a Tournament Players Club. Expense of operation: To be borne by VBDA/City of Virginia Beach, including a license fee to be payable to PGA TOUR, Inc. in the amount of $10,000/month. Total expenses for the term of this agreement will not exceed $350,000. Revenue: Payable to VBDA/City of Virginia Beach, except for revenues from sale of exempt property as defined in the Lease Termination Agreement, which revenues shall belong to operator. K. PLANNING 1. Application of EDWARD A., JR. and KATHLEEN T. KURPIEL for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance at 2184 Princess Anne Road re subdividing an existing lot into two lots. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) 2 a H RECOMMENDATION DENIAL Application of CINGULAR WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit re a communications tower at 5638 Baccalaureate Drive. (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) (Applicant requests Deferral to January 9, 2007) RECOMMENDATION DEFER TO JANUARY 9, 2007 Application of DISCIPLESHIP TABERNACLE for a Conditional Use Permit re a church at 3540 Holland Road. (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL Applications of BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. at 6226 Providence Road: (DISTRICT I — CENTERVILLE) a. Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District b. Conditional Use Permit re a senior housing project STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DEFERRAL APPROVAL 5. Application of OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C. for a Change gfZoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B4 Mixed Use District at Centerville Turnpike and Lynnhaven Parkway to develop the site with retail, restaurants, offices and multi -family condos. (DISTRICT 1— CENTERVILLE) RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 6. Application of DEEP BLUE MARINE, L.L.C. for a Modification of Conditions at 3716 Shore Drive (approved by City Council on October 25, 2005) re landscape plantings and site improvements. (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) RECOMMENDATION ■. ' Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday December 12. 2006, at 9'00 P.M. The following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 1- CENTERVILLE Ocean Properties, Ill Application: Change of Zoning District Classification_ from B-2 Community Business to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use at Center- ville Turnpike and Lynnhaven Parkway (GPINs 1454980202; 1454983391.). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being part of the Pri- mary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehen- sive Plan. The purpose of this zoning change is to develop the site with a mixed -use development. Beco Development, L.L.C. Application: Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business to Conditional A-36 Apartment at 6226 Providence Road (GPIN 1456335185). The Compre- hensive Plan designates this sits as being part of the Primary Residential Area, suitable for approprl 3tely located suburban residential and non-residen- tial uses consistent with the policies of the Compre- hensive Plan. The purpose of this zoning change is to develop the site a senior housing project. Beco Development, LL.C. Application: Conditional Use Permit for senior housing at 6226 Providence Road (GPIN 1456335185). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C. Application: Modification of Conditions at 3716 Shore Drive (GPINs 1489494148; 1489494067). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers re to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Sub- division for Edward A. Kurpiei, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel, at 2184 Princess Anne Road (GPIN 2414059787). DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE Cingular Wireless Application: Conditional Use Per- mit for a communications tower at 5638 Baccalau- reate Drive (11468230888). DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL Discipleship Tabernacle Application: Conditional Use Permit for a church at 3540 Holland Road (GPIN 1486741011). All interested citizens are invited to attend. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Copies of the proposed ordinances, resolutions and amendments are on file and may be examined in the Department of Planning or online at httw://www.vbgov.com/dept/­planning/­boar&/­p For information call 385-4621. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY ft CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303. uo.r.,,, u.,,, 01;z R. ne z >nnr, I r1l OSZO09 Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. Subdivision Variance ro f CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel. Property is located at 2184 Princess Anne Road (GPIN 2414059787). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The applicant owns a 2.073-acre lot with a lot width of 242 feet. A single-family house and two-story garage are located just south of the center of the lot. ■ Considerations: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the existing lot into two lots. The newly created, Lot A-2-13, has a lot width of 195 feet and consists of 1.091 acres in area. The existing house and garage will not be moved and are situated entirely on Lot A-2-13. The second new lot, Lot A-2-A is a flag shaped lot with a lot width of 51 feet. Lot A-2-A is 42,818.62 square feet (0.983 acres) in area and is intended for a future single-family dwelling. Access to both proposed lots will be provided from Princess Anne Road. A subdivision variance is required because Lot A-2-A does not meet the required 100-foot minimum lot width established by the Zoning Ordinance for the R-20 Residential District. Staff concludes that strict application of the ordinance would not produce an undue hardship, and thus this request does not meet the criteria for a subdivision variance as provided for in Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Currently, the applicant's lot is not irregularly shaped and does not possess any physical features that are a hardship justifying a variance, nor is there any extraordinary situation or condition that creates a hardship. If the existing house was moved or demolished, the existing lot could be subdivided by -right into two lots meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the R-20 Residential District. The applicant, however, has no desire to move or demolish the home, and thus, any perceived hardship is self-inflicted under the criteria of the Subdivision Ordinance. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 6-4 to deny this request. Edward a. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel Page 2 of 2 ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends denial. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: S �— - 7J3 Oawk EDWARD A. KURPIEL, JR. & KATHLEEN T. KURPIEL Agenda Item 14 November 8, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Leslie Bonilla REQUEST: Edward A. KurnieL Ir Map X-lll2 01, �9�ota� 0� J AG-2 Q (` p� R=20 o-z r�rsrLoru t AN � AC IUD(� \ R-� I \nrsTfC A& 2 J /Ao \\ .9ibdivi5ion Variance Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 2184 Princess Anne Road. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24140597870000 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 2.073 acres (or 90,305.40 square feet) Existing Lot: The existing lot is 2.073 acres and has a lot SUMMARY 4F REQUEST width of 242 feet. A single-family house and two-story garage is located just south of the center of the lot. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the existing lot into two lots. The newly created, Lot A-2-13, has a lot width of 195 feet and consists 1.091 acres in area. The existing house and garage will not be moved and are situated entirely on Lot A-2-13. Lot A-2-A, is a flag shaped lot with a lot width of 51 feet. Lot A-2-A is 42,818.62 square feet (0.983 acres) in area and is designed for a future single-family dwelling. Access to both proposed lots will be provided off of Princess Anne Road. A subdivision variance is required because Lot A-2-A does not meet the required 100-foot minimum lot width established by the Zoning Ordinance for the R-20 Residential District. EDWARD A. KURPIEL, JR. & KATHLEEN T. KURPIEL AgendaItem14 Page 1 lftm Rewired L Lot A-2-AI Lot A-2-B Minimum Lot Width in feet 100 51* 1 195 Minimum Lot Area insquare feet 20,000 42,818.62 1 47,502.18 *Variance required LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Single-family dwelling. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family dwelling / R-20 Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: . Agriculture undeveloped / AG-2 Agricultural District • City of Virginia Beach/AG-2 Agricultural District East: . Single-family dwelling / AG-2 Agricultural District Historical and Cultural District / R-20 Residential District and 0- 2 Office District West: • Single-family dwellings / R-20 Residential District • Church / R-20 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND There are no known significant natural resource or cultural features on CULTURAL FEATURES: this site. AICUZ: The site lies wholly within the AICUZ of 65-70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The Navy's Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program designates residential development in this contour as incompatible. However, the 2005 Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study produced no constraints on development in the 65-70 db Ldn AICUZ. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES _MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Princess Anne Road in front of this site is a 2-lane undivided minor suburban arterial. Upon Completion of Capital Improvement Plan 2-195, scheduled to begin 2010-11, traffic will be shifted to a new alignment and the existing Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this project will become a cul-de-sac residential street used mostly for access to existing lots. The Master Transportation Plan identifies plans to improve Princess Anne Road into a new undivided highway with a 143-foot right-of-way alignment and multi -use bikeways. EDWARD A. KURPIEL, JR. & KATHLEEN T. KURPIEL Agenda Item 14 ;Page 2 TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Princess Anne 14,059 ADT 13,600 ADT (Level Pf defin Existin L4M199 1R_ �1) house d�� Road Service "C") 3 as o,ne single-family 15,000 ADT' (Level 86 define TyropofidrL rid li e�'ses Service "D") 20 ATER: Citif water service does not front the propy ES�Ped f r connection purposes rovided hydraulic analysis suppo s the potential&SM �eIthDepartment 4pproval is required for priv MUM SEWER: This subdivision must connect to the City's 3-inch force main in Princess Anne Road. to STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: The referenced subdivision must develop a stormwater management plan for water quantity and quality in accordance with the Public Works Specifications and Standards. The stormwater management plan shall provide protection from detrimentally impacting all downstream receiving storm drain systems. The project will need to identify adequate offsite receiving drainage systems. FIRE: The proposed new home must be within 150 feet of the street or an approved access road must be provided within 150 feet of the new home. There is a requirement for a 20-foot wide road with all-weather surface capable of supporting a 75,000 pound imposed load. A turn -around must also be provided to facilitate emergency apparatus using either a cul-de-sac or hammerhead. 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. EDWARD A. KURPIEL, JR. & KATHLEEN T. KURPIEL Agenda Item 14 Page 3 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff cannot support this subdivision variance request to create a parcel that does not meet minimum lot width requirements. Staff finds that strict application of the ordinance would not produce an undue hardship. Currently, the applicant's lot is not irregularly shaped and does not possess any physical features that are a hardship justifying a variance, nor is there any extraordinary situation or condition that creates a hardship. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the Primary Residential Area, Site 4.2 Nimmo Parkway / General Booth Intersection 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. Evaluation: The applicant requests this variance so a second house can be constructed on the site. The applicant notes that prior to 2001, the property consisted of approximately 2.75 acres and was somewhat irregular in shape in that the left rear portion of the lot protruded for some distance in a westerly direction. This area, which contained about 0.75 acres, was severed off and sold to the adjacent landowner, who merged the property with their own. This action, however, is self-inflicted and is not justification for a variance. Staff finds that the applicant has not identified a hardship significant enough to warrant support of the requested subdivision variance. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. EDWARD A. KURPIEL, JR. & KATHLEEN T. KURPIEL Agenda Item 14 Page 4 •\=1NIi\We] =I.yk9:0If®I$1±li[• At* P'V y Qa w 2.��Q�f SIX %S x � a ri 41 «;r % S 0 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION - EDWARD A. KURPIEL, JR. & KATHLEEN T. KURPIEL Agenda Item.14 Rage 6 A"'h k 11 17 DISTRICT AC 2 Edward A. Kurpiel, Ji A-2-2 Subdivision Variance 1 11/14/95 Conditional Use Permit (Home Occupation - Mary Kay Cosmetics Withdrawn 2 11/27/07 Zoning Change (R-20 to AG-2 Conditional) Granted 3 10/23/89 6/25/90 Zoning Change (R-20 to 0-2) Use Permit Church Addition) Granted Granted 4 10/23/89 Reconsideration of Conditions, Zoning Change (R-3 to O-1 Granted 5 11/24/98 3/26/90 Modification to Conditions Zoning Change R-20 to Conditional B-1A Granted Granted 6 11/23/93 Zoning Change (R-20 to ConditionalO-1) Granted 7 8/8/95 Zoning Change R-20 to Conditional 0-1) Granted 8 5/25/99 Zoning Change (AG-1, AG-2 & R-20 to Conditional A-18) Granted 9 5/25/99 Zoning Change (AG-1, AG-2, & R-20 to Conditional 0-1) Granted ZONING HISTORY EDWARD A. KURPIEL, JR. & KATHLEEN T. KURPIEL Agenda Item 14 Page 7 F- Z LU LJ F- (R Vl Iri! �0 V U) Fi %s c F .�-- is " '', ', > ¢ � O " � c; � � G U ' cs cLa }' lG � � v � G O � = G< 5-8 •> O „ N r: 3 1 2 V Z O T m N ID r A... Q .t7 O N q (R � O I) ,1Ly rn G V •7 .- is O G raw PawV; y y = a .0 D O 1 LV, -- J N N .tl.• O Z C> ci "Z W C. CL 3` 3 2,15 r 6 C O � Q ri a no CL '�� rQa noava�� La° fl. f5 N C so y-� �p ga nop�4 -v`cze. p I � a°scfu _ a : � - r T `. t` �` •� C vS J 'S• ', us � eC. � m s DISCLOSURE STATEMENT EDWARD A. KURPIEL, JR. & KATHLEEN T. KURPIEL Agenda Item-14 m Page 8 Item #14 Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel Subdivision Ordinance 2184 Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne November 8, 2006 REGULAR Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary, the next item Joseph Strange: The next item is item #14, Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel. An Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision of Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel. The property is located at 2184 Princess Anne Road, District 7, Princess Anne. Barry Knight: Thank you. Welcome. Edward Kurpiel: Good afternoon. My name is Edward Kurpiel and I am the applicant and owner of the property. I just here today just to try to figure out if there is anything that can be done in order to develop this piece of property that I am trying to use for retirement. I kept short and sweet. Barry Knight: Okay. Sir, if you would like to explain to us? You see your site plan there and your laser pointer is here if you care to use it. You can possibly explain to us why you want to subdivide this property, and where and what your reason would be to give us a better understanding. Edward Kurpiel: You want everything? Barry Knight: Whatever you think is necessary. Edward Kurpiel: My reason? Barry Knight: Yes sir. Edward Kurpiel: I am planning to retire. Right now, I got two really bad knees. What I am trying to do is to build a ranch so I no longer have to go up and down the stairs. So, in order to try and go some place else with the prices so high, I felt I had enough land to be able to develop a ranch in the backyard so I can retire in a year or so. So, I just plan on putting a nice little ranch back there. Barry Knight: Okay. Are there any questions? Item # 14 Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel Page 2 Ronald Ripley: I got a question. Barry Knight: Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: I can't tell by looking at this, but would you share the same driveway in this incident, or will there be two separate curb cut? Edward Kurpiel: That's why we deferred from two months ago. We originally were going to use the same driveway and come in behind that building. We decided that it would look a lot more presentable if we came in the right hand side (pointing to PowerPoint) with a separate driveway to the ranch back there. Ronald Ripley: Was that something you decided, or was it something that the City suggested? Edward Kurpiel: Something both my attorney and myself decided to do. Unfortunately, he is not here right now. He is in court. Ronald Ripley: How did the City react to that? You don't have to answer that. I'll ask them. It's okay. Edward Kurpiel: Okay. Barry Knight: Are there any questions? We have no opposition on this from any neighbors, or any from the public that we are aware of. Joseph Strange: We have one other speaker. Barry Knight: One other speaker. Okay. Fine. Thank you sir. Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: Jim Cam Ed Weeden: That is his attorney. He is not here yet. Joseph Strange: Okay. I gotcha. That is it. Barry Knight: Does any of the Commissioners have any questions? Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: Faith? Are you pinch-hitting here? Faith Christie: Yes. Item # 14 Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel Page 3 Ronald Ripley: Okay. Was there any comment about the driveways, or a shared driveway, or something you preferred or not preferred? Are you just objecting to the whole matter because of the subdivision? Faith Christie: We were opposed to the request because there is no hardship. So, there wasn't any discussion about shared driveways or separate driveways. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Mr. Ripley? Ronald Ripley: I'm sorry Jay. May I follow up? If this application was approved would a shared driveway be preferred over two driveways? I guess Mr. Scott. Robert Scott: The answer is yes. Lets talk about a couple of things. At the current time, this road relatively heavily traveled, and so from that point of view the one curb cut as opposed to two would probably be acceptable if we could do that. In the long run, our plans, if we ever widen that road would be try to bypass this piece, and so it is going to be nicer to live on. In the future, it is going to be more quiet because the main road will go through Matthews, it cuts off a piece of the Matthews property that you looked a couple of months ago. At that point, it might not be that important, but in the short term it is important, and I think you ought to keep to that if there is a way that you could do that. I think the other thing is you need to look at the strict interpretation of the code, which does demand that you do look for hardship. I think I agree with what Ms. Christie said that there is no hardship. But you also need to look at how it fits into the neighborhood around it, and how it would diminish, if it would diminish the quality of the neighborhood. Maybe it would fit right in. That is up to you to determine. We need to look at that as well. But, when we look at this, and if you look at the code, and the code says in order to determine you either have to look at the hardship. That is a literal interpretation of the law. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Sorry Jay. Barry Knight: Mr. Bernas? Jay Bernas: The write up talks about how the lot used to be irregularly shape and there was a portion sold off in a westerly direction. What did that previously look like? Faith Christie: It used to go to the west, like an "L" shape, behind Mickey the horse. Jay Bernas: So, basically the rear of that lot that says AG-2, that whole rear rectangle, he sold that portion off? Faith Christie: That is correct. Item # 14 Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel Page 4 Barry Knight: Are there any other questions, Mr. Bernas? Are there any other questions? Is there any discussion? Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: They say they don't see a hardship. What constitutes a hardship? What does not constitute a hardship? Does the fact that this gentleman has difficulty going up and down stairs constitute a hardship? I don't know what constitutes a hardship or what doesn't? Barry Knight: Do you want to ask Mr. Scott? Robert Scott: It is suppose to be hardship related to the characteristics of the land. Eugene Crabtree: Okay. Robert Scott: I think, and I'm going to answer that question in two ways. It has to a physical characteristic ordinarily having to do with the topography of the unusual shape. Really, this doesn't have any topography problems, and it doesn't have any unusual shape. But it is a little bit big in relation to the width that the property has on the road. That is a dimensional characteristic that this property has. If it was wide enough on the road, I don't think anyone would think twice about having two lots there. It's the way that lot is shaped. It's plenty big, but it is not wide enough. Now, in the past, in determining whether or not that is topographical or dimensional problem or not, you have to take into account how you can see it fitting into the neighborhood. But, it is not a matter of size. I don't believe it's a matter of putting a structure where someone would have a problem with a structure. It's not too close to someone else's property. It doesn't seem to frustrate what other people had in he way of expectations in that area. The simple matter is the piece of property isn't wide enough to meet the zoning ordinance requirements given the area that it has got. The hardship you need to be looking for is a dimensional requirement or conventional factor having to deal with the property itself. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree, are you through with the questioning? Eugene Crabtree: Yes. Barry Knight: Okay. Ms. Katsias. Kathy Katsias: So, in other words if you move the house to the middle or to the left, he could by -right build another house? Robert Scott: You have to ask Faith. Faith says yes. Kathy Katsias: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Ms. Anderson? Item # 14 Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel Page 5 Janice Anderson: I'm fine. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: I have a question of the planner. How would this fit into the neighborhood, as far as if we approve this, how would this work with the neighborhood? Faith Christie: As you can see up there, there are large lots with single-family dwellings on them. If you approve this, then they will most likely want to come in and do something very similar. Joseph Strange: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Comments? One thing that it looks like on this is this is a piece of property, and Mr. Scott, if it had enough of road frontage they could come in and do it by -right, then they could have two driveways, and we're trying to get away from two driveways, and now he doesn't have the road frontage, and if we were to approve it, he would have one driveway, which is what we do want for the time being, and then at such time that Matthews Green or Princess Anne Road is relocated, then of course, we don't have to worry about driveways then, but the application is today, do you know what timeline is on straightening that out? Well, anything related to road construction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Barry Knight: You said enough Mr. Scott. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: When I reviewed this application we all talked about hardship, I'm sure we are not talking the same hardship as the applicant. He believes it is more of a financial situation where he could be financial gain if he is able to do this with his property. But, I think we are bound to look at the subdivision ordinance, and what they put in front of us to authorize a variance. Indeed, in front of us, and our application, it says the hardship has to be created by the physical character of the property. The dimensions, topography always have been that. It is not for personal gain or personal financial interest. It states right there personal afflicted hardship is not considered. This is a square piece, rectangular piece of property that has nothing unique to it. I just don't believe it qualifies or meets the criteria for a variance of the subdivision, and also with this you are creating a flag lot, which I think you should be careful creating flag lots in areas where you may have others say just backup behind properties. So, I couldn't be supportive of this. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions or comments? I certainly sympathize with the applicant. I see that the applicant has a piece of property here. Eventually, he enjoys living where he is living. I am sure he is going to enjoy it more if they ever relocate that road. In that area, you see some larger pieces of property, but two acres is actually a Item # 14 Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel Page 6 pretty large lot in there. I hate to deny someone their use of their property, particularly if he owns, of course all of it now. If he puts a house in the back then if he decides to share the driveway, which I think we make a condition, if someone made a motion to approve. He would share that driveway, and he would retain ownership of both parcels, or he decided to share a parcel, at least the people coming in would know what they were getting themselves into. So, I am kind of torn. I understand the hardship as far as the zoning ordinance goes and as far as land use, but I certainly understand where the gentleman is coming from. He has two acres and he wants to stay there. He wants to get a single family home. Those are just my comments. I'll open it back up for discussion to the Commissioners or if the Commission would entertain a motion? Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: I would like to make a motion that we approve it with the one driveway as it was originally instead of two curb cuts. Barry Knight: There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Ronald Ripley: I'll second it. Barry Knight: Mr. Ripley. We have a second. We will now open it back up for discussion. Janice Anderson: I would like to make an alternate motion. Barry Knight: A substitute motion? Janice Anderson: Yes. Barry Knight: Okay. Janice Anderson: Yes. Substitute for denial. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a substitute motion on the floor to deny made by Jan Anderson. Do I have a second to the substitute motion? There is a second by Ms. Katsias. Is there any discussion on this? Ms. Katsias. Kathy Katsias: My reasoning for denying it is because there might be a hardship but he can build on it by right by just moving the existing house, which would afford him the opportunity of utilizing this two acres. So, I really see it as a hardship. It might cost him a little extra money, but he can still have access to his property. Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Okay. We will be voting on the substitute motion. The substitute motion is a motion to deny the application. So, we will call for the question. Item # 14 Edward A. Kurpiel, Jr. and Kathleen T. Kurpiel Page 7 AYE 6 NAY 4 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE NAY HENLEY ABSENT KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT NAY LIVAS AYE RIPLEY NAY STRANGE AYE WALLER NAY WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 6-4, the substitution motion to deny the application has been approved. Barry Knight: Thank you. uur for communications Tower CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Cingular Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit for a communications tower on property located at 5638 Baccalaureate Drive (GPIN 1468230888). DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to install a tower for wireless communication antennae and related equipment within an existing Dominion Virginia Power transmission tower. The existing tower is located within a Virginia Power easement that runs through the Campus East and Lake Edward neighborhoods. ■ Considerations: The applicant is requesting that this matter be deferred to the January 9, 2007 City Council meeting. An issue with an adjacent property owner after the Planning Commission hearing has not yet been resolved. The applicant requests additional time to work with that property owner. ■ Recommendations: Per the applicant's request, deferral of this matter to the January 9, 2007 City Council meeting is recommended. ■ Attachments: Applicant's Request for Deferral Location Map Recommended Action: Deferral to the January 9, 2007 City Council meeting. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager:�- Page 1 of 1 Stephen J. White From: Karen Prochilo Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:13 AM To: Stephen J. White Subject: FW: Request for deferral Please read the following email and defer the Cingular Wireless for the December CC. Thanks - KP Karen M. ProcNlo Department of Planning City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center - Building 2 2405 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9040 Office: 757-385-4298 Fax: 757-385-5667 kprocbil@vbgov.com From: Raffertygmr@aol.com [mailto:Raffertygmr@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:08 PM To: Karen Prochilo Subject: Request for deferral Karen: Per our meeting earlier today, please accept this as Cingular Wireless request to defer, for a period of thirty days, the Conditional Use Permit for a Collocation on the existing Virginia Power Structure located at 5638 Baccalaureate Drive scheduled for the December City Council meeting so that an issues with the adjacent property can be resolved. If this issue can not be resolved within that time I will request, in writing, a withdrawal of this application. Additionally I spoke with Glen Hampton, attorney for Cingular, regarding the Cingular Wireless Conditional Use Application for 1492 Pleasant Ridge Road. Glen is going to contact the Virginia Beach City attorney in an attempt to resolve the easement issue on this property. As with the above site, if we can not get this issue resolved or at least a plan of action for this issue during the month of December I will request, in writing, a withdrawal of this application as well. I really appreciate the time you were able to give us today and will keep you informed of any progress on both of these applications. Thanks Greg Rafferty Zoning Specialist 12/1 /2006 Cl /P fnr Churrh z0A 8 � CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Discipleship Tabernacle for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 3540 Holland Road (GPIN 1486741011). DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of two (2) units within an existing strip commercial center as a church. ■ Considerations: The Church has a current membership of 150. Church activities are proposed on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. Sufficient parking is available to accommodate the proposed church and the other current tenants of the shopping center. The primary hours of operation are typically opposite of regular operating business hours of the commercial center. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they concluded the use will be compatible to the other tenants of the commercial center, staff recommended approval, and there was no opposition. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. No signage for the church adjacent to any public right-of-way shall be allowed. 2. All necessary alteration permits and a certificate of occupancy for the change of use from the Department of Planning/Permits and Inspections Division shall be obtained before occupancy and use of the building for a church. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Discipleship Tabernacle Page 2of2 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: .�4 DISCIPLESHIP TABERNACLE Agenda Item 4 November 8, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a church in an existing shopping center. f� '`l \ ��� 2�'•4 • 1 ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3540 Holland Road, units 107 and 108. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 14867410110000 3 — ROSE HALL The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow the SUMMARY OF REQUEST use of two (2) units within an existing strip commercial center as a church. The Church has a current membership of 150. Typical church activities are proposed on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Existing shopping center and parking lot. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Apartments / A-18 Apartment District USE AND ZONING: South: . Holland Road, retail, vacant / B-2 Community Business District East: . Retail auto store / 1-1 Light Industrial District, B-2 Community Business District West: . Chantry Road, fuel sales / B-2 Community Business District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is located within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are no CULTURAL FEATURES: significant environmental features present as the site is almost entirely impervious due to the existence of the shopping center and parking lot. DISCIPLESHIP TABERNACLE Agenda Item 4 Page 1 AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65-70 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Holland Road is a four (4) lane divided suburban arterial. This section of roadway is shown on the MTP as a 130 foot right-of-way with CIP 2-008. No funding has been identified. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Holland Road 31,898 ADT 32,800 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — Service "E") 240 ADT Proposed Land Use 3- 49 ADT Average Daily Trips s as defined by 5,240 sf of retail use 3as defined by 5,240 sf of church use WATER & SEWER: This site is currently connected to both City water and sewer. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan map designates this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes limited commercial or institutional activities providing desired goods or services to residential neighborhoods are considered acceptable uses within this area. Evaluation: The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations and is compatible with the existing businesses in the shopping center and surrounding uses. Sufficient parking is available to accommodate the proposed church and other tenants of the shopping center. The primary hours of operation are typically opposite of regular operating business hours of the shopping center. Staff does not foresee any negative impacts associated with this request, and, therefore, recommends approval subject to the conditions below. DISCIPLESHIPTABERNACLE Agenda Item 4 Page 2 CONDITIONS 1. No additional signage for the church adjacent to any public right-of-way shall be allowed. 2. All necessary alteration permits and a certificate of occupancy for the change of use from the Department of Planning/Permits and Inspections Division shall be obtained before occupancy and use of the building for a church. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. DISCIPLESHIP TABERNACLE Agenda Item 4 Page 3 PROP OSE� SITS NAe�� CIp�ESNIp T Item ` DIS genda. Rage 1 03/02/04 CHANGE OF ZONING (1-1 to B-2) CUP motor vehicle sales Granted Granted 2 01/26/99 CUP communication tower Granted 3 09/08/98 CHANGE OF ZONING A-12 to R-5S Granted 4 05/13/97 CHANGE OF ZONING A-12 to R-5S Granted 5 01/09/96 CUP bulk storage) Granted 6 11/11/95 CUP fuel sales Granted 7 11/10/92 CUP church Granted ZONING HISTORY DISCIPLESHIP TABERNACLE AgendaItem4 Page 6 f1W'oY Y, . �y�i'iwr'"' off. .� ,�,,, 4 •.. eVy 0 { c aGr : m�m�gy'vN�my cLu�a ":i2 r=c N d G Lt SYt Cpp, d y O O L SdL ,%L G 11 9D n Rw0 4g0 itl -y Pc a cG qG YA tei 6y '4 Ef•O IGE~GY�WAppL a ��Ay'• Gtv oma oM� ra=- m O C i O ^' m a c� 7'i�'rm�ic v J �e=�tl • fvJ m i w i O �' Cl `_' O V A\...r 9 o ti A L C tlo to "Us 1 G• �t O V p a tE 4• m� L� C CCSs G y O ai ;. G to 'C is •; 6c ' w 111 m tp S. � QIt �m fIi G � b L3 � u • t F., C Y., 'C O G� - J � � C moo''' s 4a o O ,°• c -p a� -}. c'-""` L ras is Y dsbe8 'asm t �ImQ �m �r °co am�m t m a y P V O i Wqq .OL„ ell, uam m ISO ro Z u o o y 7 r ao� OISCI-4SURE p,C►-E 5HlP .r enda TABERN�tem � 1),supl-E A9 Pale STAxet4E� Item #4 Discipleship Tabernacle Conditional Use Permit 3540 Holland Road District 3 Rose Hall November 8, 2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next agenda item is item #4, the application of Discipleship Tabernacle. That is for a Conditional Use Permit for a church located at 3540 Holland Road in the Rose Hall District. Is there any representative? Please come forward. Kerry Smith: Good morning. Janice Anderson: Good morning. Could you state your name? Kerry Smith: Yes. My name is Kerry Smith. I'm the Pastor of Discipleship Tabernacle. Janice Anderson: Welcome Pastor Smith. Kerry Smith: Thank you. Janice Anderson: There have been two conditions placed. Have you reviewed those and are those acceptable? Kerry Smith: I have not reviewed them. I'm sorry. Janice Anderson: If you turn around, someone from Planning will hand you the conditions. Do they seem acceptable? Kerry Smith: Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Is there any opposition to this application being placed on the consent? The Chairman has asked Gene Crabtree to review this matter for us. Eugene Crabtree: The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow two units in a current strip mall to be used as a church. They have 150 members at the current time. The activities are proposed on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. This application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for churches in existing strip malls. Their operation will not interfere with any of the other businesses in the area. There is plenty of parking in the area so there will be no conflict Item #4 Discipleship Tabernacle Page 2 over that either. There has not been any opposition by any of the neighborhoods for this, so we put it on the consent agenda as an appropriate use for this property. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve agenda item #4 for consent. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? I have a second by Kathy Katsias. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY ABSENT KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved item #4 for consent. i =11,1140 - I?Vlill ".�Allllll'a Ill Cnnrlilinnal 7nnina ChanaP• frnm R-9 to Conditinnal A-36 CUP for Senior Housing VE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEMS: (a) Application of Beco Development, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District on property located at 6226 Providence Road (GPIN 1456335185). DISTRICT 1 —CENTERVILLE (b) Application of Beco Development, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for senior housing on property located at 6226 Providence Road (GPIN 1456335185). DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The applicant proposes to rezone a 4-acre site to Conditional A-36 for the development of 144 senior housing, independent living units within two (2) buildings. Senior housing is defined as facilities with dwelling units where at least one (1) family member is 62 years of age or older. ■ Considerations: The proposed units will not be subsidized but will be available at market rental rates. There will be eight (8) models, both one (1) and two (2) bedroom units with rent rates ranging from approximately $800 to $1,200 per month. Also proposed on -site are a 1,600 square foot community center and an outdoor pool. The four (4) story buildings, up to 61 feet high, will be constructed with brick and vinyl exteriors. The facility will include an activity room on each floor, a library, a small store and a beauty shop. Two (2) elevators are planned for each building. Van transportation service will be provided. The Senior Housing Review Committee met in September and determined the proposed project suitable for providing independent living housing for moderate - income seniors. The distance of the facility from useful services typically needed by this age group is adequate and meets the guidelines of the "Senior Housing Development Guidelines" as provided in the City's Report on Senior Housing Multi -family Issues: A Policy Report, dated July 1997. While the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area in terms of use, the proposed four (4) story, 144 unit multi -family senior housing development is inconsistent in terms of scale, density and building height for this area. There are single-family dwellings to the south, across Providence Road, that will face the "mass" of the building. The southern fagade, along Providence Road, is approximately 200 feet long and 61 feet high. A ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer is proposed along Providence Road; however, this will do little in terms of reducing the scale and mass of the Beco Development, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 proposed structure. The proposed elevations of the apartment buildings are not remarkable in design or building materials, which are a mix of brick and vinyl. No information was provided on the design of the clubhouse. For four (4) stories, the ultimate height of 61 feet is rather high for this area. There is an existing multifamily development to the west; however, the height of those structures is lower, with only three (3) stories. The applicant is to be commended for attempting to provide this type of housing, as affordable senior housing is in great demand but in low supply within the city. The density of this project as proposed, however, at 36 units to the acre, is not acceptable. While Section 235 of the City's Zoning Ordinance permits the density of a senior housing project to be set by the City Council, increasing density within this portion of the Kempsville District must be approached very carefully. As indicated by the Zoning Map contained in the attached staff report, there are no parcels in the vicinity with a density above 18 units to the acre. At the Planning Commission hearing, staff recommended that the matter be deferred to allow staff and the applicant to work further on the proposal. The applicant, however, indicated that a deferral was not possible due to time constraints on their end. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 with 1 abstention to approve the requests. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends deferral. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: Jk • 0044 BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. Agenda Items 15 & 16 November 8, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUESTS: 15) Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District. 16) Conditional Use Permit for senior housing development. 211 ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 6226 Providence Road. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 1456335185 1 - CENTERVILLE 4.0 acres B-2 The applicant proposes to rezone the four (4) acre site to SUMMARY OF REQUEST Conditional A-36 for the development of up to 144 senior housing, independent living units within two (2) buildings. Senior housing is defined as facilities with dwelling units where at least one (1) family member is 62 years of age or older. The parking requirement is modified for these facilities to only one (1) space per independent dwelling unit. These proposed units will not be subsidized but will be available at market rental rates. There will be eight (8) models, both one (1) and two (2) bedroom units with rent rates ranging from $800 to $1,200 per month (approximately). Also proposed on -site are a 1,600 square foot community center and an outdoor pool. The four (4) story buildings, up to 61 feet high, will be constructed with brick and vinyl exteriors. The facility will include an activity room on each floor, a library, a small store and a beauty shop. Two (2) elevators are planned for each building. Van service will be provided. The Senior Housing Review Committee met in September and determined the proposed project suitable for providing independent living housing for moderate - income seniors. The distance of the facility from useful services typically needed by this age group is adequate and meets the guidelines of the "Senior Housing Development Guidelines" as provided in the City's Report on Senior Housing Multi -family Issues: A Policy Report, dated July 1997. BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 15 & 16 Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A church is utilitzing a rehabilitated barn structure for their use. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: . Providence Road, single-family dwellings / R-7.5 Residential District East: . Vacant / B-2 Community Business District West: . Multifamily / A-18 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The property is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There do not CULTURAL FEATURES: appear to be any significant environmental features on the site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Providence Road in the vicinity of this application is considered a four (4) lane divided minor urban arterial. The MTP proposes a four (4) lane, divided facility with a bikeway within a 100 foot right-of-way. No Capital Improvements are slated for this area. Old Providence Road is considered a two (2) lane, undivided local street. No Capital Improvements are slated for this area. Traffic Engineering staff indicated that while the applicant's engineer has agreed to provide a left turn lane, it is not depicted on the proffered plan. In addition, full right-of-way improvements along Old Providence Road will be required. No elevation proffered of club house. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Providence Road 17,843 ADT 14,800 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — Service "C") — 22,800 ADT ' (Level of Service "D") 429 ADT Proposed Land Use 3— 512 ADT merage vauy 1 npb s as defined by church use 3as defined by 147 senior housing units WATER: There is an existing 5/8-inch water meter that will need to be upgraded for this development. There is an existing 16-inch water main in Providence Road and an existing 8-inch water main in Old Providence Road. BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda-ltems 15 &-16 Page 2 SEWER: This site currently is connected to City sewer. Analysis of Pump Station #425 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an existing 8-inch City sanitary sewer gravity main in Old Providence Road. There is an 8-inch City sanitary sewer gravity main and a 16-inch City sanitary sewer force main located in Providence Road. There is also an existing 36-inch HRSD force main that crosses through the property paralleling Providence Road. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff cannot support this application as currently proposed. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being within the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. Page 91 of the Primary Residential Area chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states "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." Evaluation: Staff is not supportive of the request due to the excessive number of units proposed and the resulting density of 36 units to the acre. While Section 235 of the City's Zoning Ordinance permits the density of a senior housing project to be set by the City Council, increasing density within this portion of the Kempsville District must be approached very carefully. Upon reviewing the Zoning Map, it is clear that there are no parcels in the vicinity above 18 units to the acre. While the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area in terms of use, the proposed four (4) story, 144 unit multi -family senior housing development is inconsistent in terms of scale, density and building height for this area. There are single-family dwellings to the south, across Providence Road, that will face the "mass" of the building. The southern facade, along Providence Road, is approximately 200 feet long and 61 feet high. A ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer is proposed along Providence Road; however, this will do little in terms of reducing the scale and mass of the proposed structure. The proposed elevations of the apartment buildings are not remarkable in design or building materials, which are a mix of brick and vinyl. No information was provided on the design of the clubhouse. For four (4) stories, the ultimate height of 61 feet is rather high for this area. There is an existing multifamily development to the west; however, the height of those structures is approximately half as high, with only three (3) stories. The applicant is to be commended for attempting to provide this type of housing, as affordable senior housing is in great demand but in low supply within the city. In addition, the use is compatible with the adjacent residential area and businesses. The two significant issues are the high density and the potential negative visual impact that the massive appearance of a 61 foot high by 200 foot wide building, clearly higher than any other buildings in the area, will have on surrounding properties, particularly the single- family community to the south. By reducing the scale of the building, the density should be correspondingly reduced and come more in line with other properties in the vicinity. BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items-15 &-16 Page 3 Staff, therefore, cannot support the proposal as currently designed. Staff encourages and recommends a deferral to allow the applicant to further address height, density, and layout issues. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the property is developed, it shall be substantially in accordance with the Preliminary Site Plan entitled "COLLEGE SQUARE SENIOR APARTMENTS, 6226 PROVIDENCE ROAD" dated 08/02/06, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Site Plan"). PROFFER 2: When the property is developed, the residential structures depicted on the Site Plan shall have the architectural design and utilize the building materials substantially as depicted and designated on the exhibit entitled, "PROVIDENCE ROAD SENIOR LIVING UNITS, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," dated 08/22/06, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department ("Elevations"). PROFFER 3: When the property is developed, there will be no more than one hundred forty-four (144) independent senior housing units provided within the building depicted on the Site Plan. PROFFER 4: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are not acceptable as the proposed density, mass of the building, and site layout are not compatible with surrounding properties. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated August 25, 2006, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda -items 15 &,-16 Page 4 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 15 & 16 Page 5 0. Al it J i !� � } � �� \ � 112 PROPOSED SITEPLAN, BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda Items 15 16 Page 6 ow " OW "a Us es a us Us m ca: sn" OW Ing ink -an, I C�Ii��l (�IEllllillli�� 'simunmu®rin mninmiui� n! FOIE Il a.t�e ry " ■■ I�IN� ii �Ii ae` � 'I j I �� I kl f 11j1i II' ® 93 NoE n' �! 110 II�IN 'rjN11'(��ff M91lt11aon! T111ill call1 O.wou���� i il�uunu I BW �h �" P � an UN �i�F ,EE OR � iaam! LW mg ON ��i� yuy !l ��i I N�� �i��� ei-1, �E; Ui 1 I .I .II I� mm nlll" ,I II G 191fl �'��'i 8t,OR '" t ..E, ro U YYi �:E i�',1�; :r• 1 I��Ipd fi � ;q'i11111�I 811w�in�n of j . � uniamin mnnma e - .iE ■. 1 d �nn,l 1. 01 Il MIN! Cli �E a:E! sat; LIE 111�1,1111�iIll CE E: O v ifl-�lplr� 'iilfil�-6lilY map is-y Map Not to Scale oie A plllioss I L IN A 11,55, 02-6 y � t Conditional `onmg �-nange: rrom Li-z ro t.onumonai r-,3o CUP for Senior Housing 1 01/11/05 CHANGE OF ZONING R-10 to B-2 Granted 2 04/23/02 CHANGE OF ZONING B-2 to A-18 Granted 3 01/08/02 STREET CLOSURE Granted 4 10/10/00 CUP church Granted 5 08/11/98 CUP auto repair) Granted 6 04/27/93 CUP motor vehicle sales Granted ZONING HISTORY BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda items-15 & 16 Page 9 11 Z a LLI o er, ti � c m m O Q W L � S m @ G ip ; � L O � •L O N ^� 3`U m m°—� npe cs�—my�gny�5o k y yea rN, �_ Q ul � A U ✓ N G mN V N a° m W -L 0 G1. mN 'L.. 0 i° G u 6 tl} itma N�Qy �� ou`°nCL o -0 0)0 W'U QN cc 5 W N, ID S C m O� E 01 V a G C G N L G U N N fn .0 m m° N m$ ay c 3m w Q' rk 'Q- "r mcc�c�icaa= Ec2m ZNc° 2 70,c� t7 t='' c3g m�mmpar0 i6�c .Xen� --m Cy m 9� Q .N amm d Os "m L cQ N O J Um ub C t4 ED .A .A 41) C COU O m aQ A O m y N m m S U .9 ° O 0A 7.-C d L m v d E.• e Q m Lb 0 m 0 et) m s m Q N U C (4 :q ftl C W C y C N 19 6'i C m C m V 1L O p q1`y, m 0 i Q 41 N Q m^ Sm Y �Yi Nm m ML n .�pp II+m .0 �'mQ m y emir ycpT �i xy„"� ppQc Q�QE°cm eJ.a .w Q omir m tQ U.1 J > m a mn C yJ ai m o s o E d y W Rc ¢ of•N p Wm i �` ti R1 r m G� 1 W� Q t 00,00 n W ul rn Do cm a an Zm�L m 9 m ya CL _ CS Q o 0. W n W m aflQ o =Aov O U m� > — pwQo �d cw O- G c Q t" ,. 4 }. o j O. CoR'- = m o+v ymti U =m a_y m� o v Cum 42 p' NL LC mROp m u 0- m pC U7 mOQ. ~m maQ mS m= m m o j ,_I .'".. U o d ocO r Q = O*, m N m c m 4> C = m m cs a m C ta � O 4 ^ a 4 m g � 0 N C m ZE ... C C ~ C Q Of mg 1a° L m c O m E ms t 'w UQ j''j STATEMENT DISCLOSURE BECO DEVELOPMENT Agenda" Items 15 & 16 Page 10 Item #15 & 16 Beco Development, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Conditional Use Permit 6226 Providence Road District 1 Centerville November 8, 2006 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next items are items #15 & 16, Beco Development, L.L.C. Application of Beco Development, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District on property located at 6226 Providence Road and an application of Beco Development, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for senior housing on property located at 6226 Providence Road, District 1, Centerville with four proffers. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Secretary, Chairman and members of the Commission, for the record my name is Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney and I'm here this afternoon with the privilege of representing Beco Construction on this application that has just been read to you. With me is Mr. Jeff Miller, who is the Director of Development for Beco and Ms. Lynn Rhodes who is the head of Asset Management, who will be the manager of this project. Earlier in the informal session, you were given pictures of the proposed building that is the exact building that has been built by Beco up in Fredericksburg, very, very similar project. By using the computer, we have been able to project that on to this piece of property. The background information is not completely accurate. It's an artist computer generated but the building itself is 100 percent accurate, as is the clubhouse as well. There was not in the application an actual elevation of the clubhouse but this will serve as that, and we're happy to have a condition, if it is approved, the Use Permit that it be in substantial accordance with these submitted visual renderings of the building. The proposed College Square senior apartments is on a piece of unconditional B-2 property located on Providence Road between Indian Road and Military Highway next to Banberry Lake Apartments, located to the west of the property. The proposal for senior housing on this 4-acre site is for two residential structures, each of which is a four-story building. Each of the two buildings contains two elevators for a total of four elevators in the project. Each building contains 72 units. The interesting part of this development is that of those units, 144 units, half of the time will be one -bedroom units. I think that is an important factor to keep in mind as you look at this project is that one half of the units are one bedroom units. The project is a non -subsidized project. It is a market project however, it fits a very definite need in our city, and that we have a lot of high -end senior housing and we have some subsidized housing. These apartment units, again, half of them being one bedroom units rent for the lower figures at $800 to $950 a month, which if you work the math it works out to something that is very affordable for someone whose fixed income or income annually is in the upper $30,000 to $45,000 dollars, which is a Item #5 & 6 Beco Development, L.L.C. Page 2 moderate income range for seniors. It's not the low end, the very lowest end, but it is far from the high end. It is something that the City needs very much, in terms of its affordability. In addition to that, the number of units is important from a standpoint of economics to make this project work. If you look on the package that I just passed out which has floor plans of the different units, it also has a list of the amenities of each building. In each building, in addition to the clubhouse, the pool, the walking path around the BMP, and outdoor amenities, there are a tremendous amount of indoor amenities. Each building has a library, a computer room, an indoor recreation room, there is a massage room, a salon, and a sauna. The list of amenities is very significant. In fact, the Senior Housing Committee, I think it is safe to say, was very impressed with the large array of amenities that have been provided with this project, also concierge service, van service. There will be a van on site. Most of these residents after they have moved in and have been there for six months or so, will no longer need a car and the car that they wanted for independence feeling, they won't need or use. There are not that many vehicles that wind up being utilized. Some sit in the parking lot for a standard period of time. There is also commercial nearby. It is in a good location as far as shopping and other amenities. It will actually help some of the commercial in the area. All of the units are ADA accessible. Some that they are building are ADA compliant. All of the units will be convertible to meet the requirements of ADA if a resident needed that to take place. It is a structural steel building. It is all sprinkled. It is a HUD financed project but not a subsidized project. Let me also point out the port cache in the front is 11 feet high which allows ambulances to get underneath them. That was one of the things that the Senior Housing Committee really liked and appreciated. They also appreciated the two elevators. These are four-story buildings. The height of these buildings from foundation to eve is 41 feet. It is the peek of the roof, the large angle of the roof that gets the height up actually 60 feet. The building itself is only 41 feet in height as a four-story building. The issue that was addressed somewhat in your write up about the building frontage on Providence Road is 190 feet. If you could, put up the site plan? Stephen White: Sorry Eddie. I don't have the site plan. I have to apologize. Eddie Bourdon: Okay. It's in your package. The building frontage on Providence Road is 190 feet. The closest point to Providence Road on the north end of the building is 40 feet from the road. On the south end of the building, because of the angle of the property, the building is actually back to 72 feet from the road. The peek of the roof is only 130 feet in length. The peek of the roof is setback from the north end 82 feet from Providence Road and 100 feet from the south end. It is only 130 feet wide. So, the idea that the building is 190 feet and it is 60 feet in the air is not the case. It is 41 feet in the air and of that 190 feet, and then the roof pulls back from that into the muddle where the peek is. Now contrast that with case #1 on your agenda today that you approved on the consent agenda. Those buildings on those two properties on Centerville and Lynnhaven, those buildings are 40 feet tall, and they are right on those roads. They are beautiful buildings. I'm not going to say anything to the contrary. We could shorten the building here but it would only be making the roof flatter because a four-story building, 41 feet in height, and Item #5 & 6 Beco Development, L.L.C. Page 3 it is not like were dealing with 12 foot ceilings or anything like that. It is just standard height of the building. So, we think it is more attractive because of the type of roof that is shown on there versus having some type of a flatter roof. Also contrast that with the application that this Commission and City Council approved earlier this year over in Bayside, where we had Diamond Springs and Wesleyan. We had a five -story building that had A-12/A-18 around it, and had 32 units per acre. Yet, there were only a handful of one -bedroom units. All but less than 10 units were two bedroom units. So, from my perspective, the density here is actually less because of the number of bedrooms and the number of people than can reside in them on per acre basis. So, the use, I think everyone is familiar with the use. It is a quiet use. It is a wonderful use of property with little traffic. There are no children to educate. In this case, no government subsidies and it definitely meets a need in the community for affordable, not the lowest and the affordable but certainly affordable housing for seniors. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions. We're fine with the proffers. Obviously, were happy with any conditions that you want to add to the pictures that have been provided as well as the floor plans that we have provided. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bourdon, you don't have any access from Old Providence Road do you? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. Barry Knight: You do? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. We do. Barry Knight: Okay. Do you intend to use any access off of Old Providence Road. Eddie Bourdon: Yes. We are showing access from both roads, which the Public Safety folks think is excellent. There is an entrance on both roads. Barry Knight: I had just seen that it had been closed but evidently further to the right or further to the north. Eddie Bourdon: Correct. The portion that was closed actually was for a commercial venture that didn't happen. There was going to be a Walgreens on the corner but it had some issues and it didn't materialize. That is out towards Indian River but the portion that we have access to is open. That is a secondary entrance. It is not the main entrance but from a public safety standpoint that was applauded. Barry Knight: Does your client own the adjoining property? Eddie Bourdon: No. The person owned this property for many, many, many years and Item #5 & 6 Beco Development, L.L.C. Page 4 Beco is acquiring this property from the church. The adjacent property is under different ownership. It is also unconditional B-2. Barry Knight: Okay. That is fine. Are there any further questions of Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bernas? Jay Bernas: Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with what the project that you're trying to do is senior housing. I agree with your argument about the one bedroom units because you can have a four bedroom unit that will still be considered one unit so I agree with your argument about that. My only question is that typically usually solicit large projects like this you go to the surrounding neighborhoods, especially with something that doesn't have favorable staff recommendation on its impact with the surrounding neighborhoods. So, I just wanted to confirm that you haven't gone out to the College Park Civic League, the Banberry Apartments or anyone else? Eddie Bourdon: I do believe the Banberry Apartments owners are pretty much aware of the application. But in terms of the communities to the north and south, I do not believe that my client has been in direct communication with the leadership of those groups. The experience that we've had, these type of facilities versus a commercial development are embraced because you've got people who have eyes and ears for the community during the daytime and a vast majority of them are retired. I have done a number of senior housing facilities and neither to my recollection has anyone opposed any. We had one in London Bridge a number of years ago and it was opposed by NAS Oceana because of the noise issue, but that was many, many years ago. We are not aware of any. The property has been posted. It has been on the internet. I am not aware of any opposition given the nature of this use versus unconditional B-2. I think it benefits the community it affords. I think there is reason why there isn't any opposition. But, if there is anyone who has contacted the City, we would have been happy to talk with them, and we still are. We will be happy to talk to anyone about that but we are in no way ashamed or embarrassed about this application. I think it's an excellent one. Jay Bernas: I agree. I just think like that is the only missing piece to me to this application. I agree with everything and all the merits. To me, that is the only small piece that is missing. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Bernas. Are there any other questions of Mr. Bourdon? Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: I probably know your answer. Did you consider toning down the density at any design is this his only product? Eddie Bourdon: Ms. Anderson. The reason and this is why we have the senior housing provisions is in order to able to afford to create the amenities that we are talking about here, it is numbers of renters that drive that train. It is all economically driven. This isn't Item #5 & 6 Beco Development, L.L.C. Page 5 a subsidized project. We can't provide these types, which are as good as they get in this field. That is why the Senior House Committee consented to that. It is excellent. You can't provide all those things economically to residents unless you have enough residents to cover those fixed costs so that is provides the need. That is why we have this type of housing as a separate special kind of housing. I'm getting ahead of myself. If there is a fear that this somehow sets precedence to the property next door, and I don't see how that can possible. No one has ever suggested that so I am just totally shooting in the dark. This type of a project doesn't create the same level of needs for services and provides a possible tax generation for the City. On top of that, we have to have the number of units in order to provide the income to provide the amenities that are present here. If you compare it to other projects of this type, I don't think we've had any that has had as many amenities provided in this price range. Some lower that can provide because of the tax credit issues and subsidies and there are some obviously Westminster Canterberry, Atlantic Shores and those type where you have very high affordability. Barry Knight: Are there any more questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Barry Knight: Oh. Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry. Is there anyone else? Barry Knight: I'll ask Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: There are no other speakers. Barry Knight: No other speakers. Okay. We will open it back up for discussion. Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Although I would like to see this as a smaller unit and I would like to see it all brick, but I realize that this is a private ownership and it is driven by economics. I think we have a definite need for this product. The price is right and there is no impact on the schools. There is little impact on traffic. Maybe there is a slight impact. Because of that, I think it is a wonderful application and I wholeheartedly support it. Barry Knight: Thank you Ms. Wood. Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: I would side on that but with a couple of other things. In the fact that I deal on a routine basis with retired people on fixed incomes that are I think I could adequately say that most of the people that I counsel in the retired community, I can honestly tell them that there is something in the City that they could afford that they could Item #5 & 6 Beco Development, L.L.C. Page 6 live in that would fit their needs, which we don't have now. If more projects like this were to go forth consequently, I am going to support it. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Crabtree. Is there any other discussion? Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: I am still concerned that it is still a little dense for the surrounding area. But I mean that is my only concern. I feel better about it with the statement that there are only going to be 72 of the units will be one bedroom. Is that correct? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. I would like to mention that the other 72 are only two -bedroom. There is nothing more than two. I failed to mention that. So there are half that are one and half that are two, and nothing more than two. Janice Anderson: Okay. I do believe it is a little dense. I think it is a little high. I think there are other benefits to this project. The density, I think I could go along with their proposal with just one and two bedroom units. Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Mr. Bernas. Jay Bernas: I just would like to say that I do support the application. I just wish and I know the sign was out there, and if there were opposition they would contact the City. I would of just like to have the input from the adjacent property owners but I do support the application. Barry Knight: The Chair will entertain a motion. Eugene Crabtree: I make a motion that we approve the application. Barry Knight: Okay. Do I have a second? Now, Mr. Crabtree, is this a motion it is brought forward? The attorney has offered up the elevation. Do you feel confident to approve it the way it is? It is totally your call. Just like it is? Eugene Crabtree: Just like it is. Barry Knight: Okay. Fine. There is a motion on the floor to approve by Gene Crabtree and a second by Dot Wood. I will open it back up. Mr. Ripley, Ronald Ripley: Mr. Chairman. I need to abstain from this matter. I have an ownership in a company that provides telecommunication services as a subcontractor and this company, which is a fine company, has provided a number of systems, so I need to abstain from this. Barry Knight: Thank you. A motion to approve on the floor made by Gene Crabtree and seconded by Dot Wood. I'll call for the question. Item #5 & 6 Beco Development, L.L.C. Page 7 AYE 9 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS I ABSENT I ABS ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, with the abstention so noted, the Board has approved the application of Beco Development, L.L.C. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all very much. Barry Knight: Thank you. W In Reply Refer To Our Fife No. DF-6487 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay WilsonR*11�1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: November 30, 2006 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application: Beco Development The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 12, 2006. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated August 25, 2006 and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW/als Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen PREPARED BY: M SWES. POURDDN. ffid AI£UUN & LUNY. P.C. BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company JOHN ZYZAK and ELBERT WATSON, TRUSTEES OF TRINITY TABERNACLE TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 25th day of August, 2oo6, by and between BECO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part, Grantor; JOHN ZYZAK and ELBERT WATSON, TRUSTEES OF TRINITY TABERNACLE, party of the second part, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the third part, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 4.o acres as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which parcel is referred to herein as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part, as contract purchaser of the Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from B-2 Commercial District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and GPIN: 1456-33-51$5 1 PREPARED BY: SYKES, ROUPDON. EN 910 & LEVY. P.C. WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the A-36 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or gjLid pro cuo. for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be substantially in accordance with the Preliminary Site Plan entitled "COLLEGE SQUARE SENIOR APARTMENTS, 6226 PROVIDENCE ROAD", dated 08/02/o6, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Site Plan"). 2. When the Property is developed, the residential structures depicted on the Site Plan shall have the architectural design and utilize the building materials substantially s depicted and designated on the exhibit entitled "COLLEGE SQUARE SENIOR APARTMENTS PROVIDENCE ROAD", dated 08/22/o6, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Planning Department "Elevations"). 3. When the Property is developed, there will be no more than one hundred ►ur (144) independent senior housing units provided within the building depicted on Site Plan. K PREPARED BY: SMS. ROURDON, in MIMN & Luy. P.C. 4. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (Y) The Zoning Administrator of the City of. Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and 3 (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: OM SPICES. ROUPDON. W AHERN & LEVY, R.C. 21 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: If Beco Develop r ent/t L.C., a Virginia limieability co pang i,` X By: (SEAL) Title: Eric son, Managing Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30th day of August, 20o6, by Eric G. Olson, Managing Member, of Beco Development, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2oo6 PREPARED BY: SYKES, BOURDON, F14EN & ILYY. P.C. k, WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: TRUSTEES OF TRINITY TABERNACLE ,.� (SEAL) John Zyzak, s t e (SEAL) Elbert Watson, Trustee STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 25th day of August, 2oo6, by John Zyzak, Trustee of Trinity Tabernacle, Grantor. r, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2oo6 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 28th day of August , 2oo6, by Elbert Watson, Trustee of Trinity Tabernacle, Grantor. My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 PREPARED BY: M SYKES, BOURDON, 11 A14ERN & LEVY. P.C. , Notary Public Ci PREPARED BY: M SYKES. BOURDON, M AMN & LEVY, R.C. EXHIBIT " Y ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing 4 acres, as shown on that certain plat (the "Plat") entitled, "Subdivision of Property for COLEMAN FARMS, INC., Kempsville Borough — Virginia Beach, Virginia Scale: i" = too' December, 1976", made by John E. Sirine and Associates, Ltd., Surveyors & Engineers, Virginia Beach, Virginia; then Plat is intended to be recorded contemporaneously herewith in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; said property being more particularly bounded and described with reference to the Plat as follows: To ascertain the point of beginning (the "Point of Beginning"), state at the southwest intersection of (Old) Providence Road and Providence Road; thence N 79' 36' 39" W along the southern line of (Old) Providence Road a distance of 166.28 feet to a point; thence continuing along said southern line of (Old) Providence Road N 78' 45' 31" W a distance of 336.88 feet to a point; thence continuing along said southern line of (Old) Providence Road N 76' 12' 24" W a distance of 1$3.93 feet to a point; thence continuing along said southern line of (Old) Providence Road, along a curve to the right having a radius of 500 feet, an are distance of 18.24 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence from the Point of Beginning S W 48' 55" E a distance of 652.39 feet to a point in the northern line of Providence Road; thence along the northern line of Providence Road, along a curve to the right having a radius of 931.42 feet, an arc distance of 378.40 feet to the property designated as Banbury Lake Village Section 1 on the Plat; thence the following courses and distances along said Banbury Lake Village Section 1: N 10' 53' 30" W a distance of 8o feet to a point, N 13' 14' 48" E a distance of 147.05 feet to a point, N 03' 55' 41" W a distance of 130.73 feet to a point, N 87' 22' 49" E a distance of 41.44 feet to a point, N 03' 53' 41" W a distance of 377.15 feet to a point, N 250 29' 1o" W a distance of 31.65 feet to a point, N 26° 16' 59" E a distance of 65.34 feet to a point in said southern line of (Old) Providence Road; thence continuing along said southern line of (Old) Providence Road S 630 43' o1" E a distance of 36.93 feet to a point; thence continuing along said southern line of (Old) Providence Road, along a curve to the left having a radius of 500 feet, an are distance of 90.75 feet to the Point of Beginning. GPIN: 1456-33-51$5 ConditionalRezone/BecoDevelopment/CollegeSquare/Proffer2.Clean Rev.8/30/o6 7 U1M _ AW .. _. ,. rr"- •�' l K w.• W :�. .r.+fn ��!!----��,� rt � 5 pry, �-c, ,py ✓ rND ...-.•-" ', 'f i1f,✓`�a' � ✓'.,.f f �+ � y +� � AFT' „��ll � rf{r ff✓ r•"""� 1 9 01, of �+r,;.+��:�f .�" .,f•F' f„P,;, ..': at �-- rg ry �',� �.+' k.�^" yr '" r,.�.+-+�,ff�,�r'r�.r,+r'i'�✓ �!� fi.-�.� tom+* � � M,..... •J r �r rNY'"`.±f � .;yy�� t?� � fin•+✓,. rat?3'71: i�; f s+!'• ii'YA"f'! ,�' ,, i; fe- t gz CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM , ITEM: Application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District on property located at the northwest intersection of Centerville Turnpike and Lynnhaven Parkway (GPINs 1454980202; 1454983391). DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The applicant proposes to change the B-2 Community Business District zoning of the subject site to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District to allow development of the site with a mix of retail, restaurants, offices, and multi -family condominium dwellings. ■ Considerations: The submitted site plan depicts 15 buildings, a central park with a small stage, outdoor seating and a fountain, associated parking, stormwater management ponds, and landscaping. Seven (7) of the buildings will be devoted to solely residential dwellings, and the remaining eight (8) buildings will be a mix of residential and commercial. The applicant proposes 192 residential condominiums, which the applicant indicates will range in price from $200,000.00 to $300,000.00. Also proposed is 66,950 square feet of commercial space, which includes specialty retail shops, restaurants, offices, and possibly a bank. The proposed commercial uses will be located along Lynnhaven Parkway, and on both Centerville Turnpike and Monument Drive, close to their intersections with Lynnhaven Parkway. Within the interior of the site, the applicant proposes a "signature building" containing both residential and commercial uses with a central park. The proposed residential and commercial uses will face the park, where a stage, outdoor seating, and a lighted, dancing fountain will be located. Single entrances to the site are proposed on Centerville Turnpike and Lynnhaven Parkway, and two entrances are proposed on Monument Drive. Sidewalks are proposed along Lynnhaven Parkway and Monument Drive. The architecture of the proposed buildings is an eclectic mix of styles, which flows together quite well. Traditional Neo-Colonial style flats and urban style lofts are proposed along the perimeter of the site. The proposed structures along the perimeter of the site are more residential in design and scale, and are well proportioned for the area. The "signature building" proposed within the interior of the site contains elements of several architectural styles, ranging from Italianate to Victorian. Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 2of2 The proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for mixed - use development in the area. The applicant has taken care to design a mixed - use project that will offer a mixture of residential dwellings in the form of lofts, flats, and dwellings above commercial uses. While the project is urban in design, it retains qualities of good suburban land use design with proposed residential structures adjacent to existing residential, and proposed commercial uses located on the main roadways. The proposed buildings along the perimeter of the site are residential in design and scale, and the more intense signature building is located within the interior of the site. The proposed density of the site at 14 dwelling units per acre is well below the 36 dwelling units to the acre allowed in the B-4 District, and is in keeping with several apartment complexes near the site. The mix of commercial uses into the development will not only be beneficial to the residents of the project but also those neighborhoods near the site. The proposed commercial uses also present a unique opportunity to attract those residents in the area who would normally shop and dine in Chesapeake, as commercial centers in that city are close by. Overall, the proposal is well designed and compatible with the surrounding uses. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they felt that the mixed use of condominiums and retail is an appropriate use for the site, the design of the complex is of a high quality and is compatible to the surrounding area, and there was no opposition to the request.. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request, as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency:: /Planning Departmen City Manager. �-S 1< "L OCEAN PROPERTIES, LLC Agenda Item 1 November 8, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Ocean Prooerties. LLC f IT— B- %, Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed -Use District. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at the northwest and northeast intersections of Lynnhaven Parkway, Monument Drive, and Centerville Turnpike. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14549802020000 1 - CENTERVILLE 13.33 acres The applicant proposes to change the B-2 Community SUMMARY OF REQUEST Business District zoning of the subject site to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District to allow development of the site with a mix of retail, restaurants, offices , and multi- family condominium dwellings. The submitted site plan depicts 15 buildings, a central park with a small stage, outdoor seating and a fountain, associated parking, stormwater management ponds, and landscaping. Seven (7) of the buildings will be devoted to solely residential dwellings, and the remaining eight (8) buildings will be a mix of residential and commercial. The applicant proposes 192 residential condominiums, which the applicant indicates will range in price from $200,000.00 to $300,000.00. Also proposed is 66,950 square feet of commercial space, which includes specialty retail shops, restaurants, offices, and possibly a bank. The proposed commercial uses will be located along Lynnhaven Parkway, and on both Centerville Turnpike and Monument Drive, close to their intersections with Lynnhaven Parkway. Within the interior of the site, the applicant proposes a "signature building" containing both residential and commercial uses with a central park. The proposed residential and commercial uses will face the park, where a stage, outdoor seating, and a lighted, dancing fountain will be located. Single entrances to the site are proposed on Centerville Turnpike and Lynnhaven Parkway, and two entrances are proposed on Monument Drive. Sidewalks are proposed along Lynnhaven Parkway and Monument Drive. OCEAN PROPERITES, LC Agenda Item 1 Page 1 The architecture of the proposed buildings is an eclectic mix of styles, which flows together quite well. Traditional Neo-Colonial style flats and urban style lofts are proposed along the perimeter of the site. The proposed structures along the perimeter of the site are more residential in design and scale, and are well proportioned for the area. The "signature building" proposed within the interior of the site contains elements of several architectural styles, ranging from Italianate to Victorian. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped site SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family dwellings / R-513 Residential USE AND ZONING: South: . Lynnhaven Parkway • Across Lynnhaven Parkway is Centerville Elementary School / R-5D Residential East: . Centerville Turnpike • Across Centerville Turnpike is Woods Creek Driving Range / B- 2 Business West: . Monument Drive • Across Monument Drive is Magnolia Chase Apartments / A-12 Apartment NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The site is a grass field. 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 PROGR_AM_(CIPI: Lynnhaven Parkway in front of the site is currently being widened to a four -lane divided major suburban arterial. This project will connect Volvo Parkway, in Chesapeake, to Lynnhaven Parkway, and will also widen and signalize the Lynnhaven Parkway and Centerville Turnpike intersection. The roadway project is scheduled to be completed in early 2007. A second roadway improvement project, Lynnhaven Parkway XI, will connect Lynnhaven Parkway from its current terminus just north of Centerville Turnpike to the other portion of Lynnhaven Parkway, which currently ends at Albright Drive. This connection would provide a continuous roadway from Volvo Parkway to Virginia Beach Boulevard. The project is only partially funded for construction and due to VDOT funding issues is not in the current VDOT six - year plan for construction. Centerville Turnpike is currently a two-lane divided minor suburban arterial roadway. There are no OCEAN PROPERITES,_LLC Agenda Item 1: Page 2 roadway improvement projects in the current CIP for Centerville Turnpike. A project to widen Centerville Turnpike to four lanes is in the "Requested But Unfunded" section of the CIP. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Lynnhaven N / A* ADT 34,900 ADT Existing Land Use — Parkway 7,331 ADT Proposed Land Use 3— Centerville 18,741 ADT' 16,200 ADT' 5,459 ADT Turnpike Average Daily Trips 'Lynnhaven Parkway is not open to through traffic 2 as defined by 13.33 acres with B-2 Business zoning s as defined by the proposed mixed -use development Due to the scope of the project, Public Works / Traffic Engineering requested a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) from the applicant. The TIS was submitted for review, and Traffic Engineering has noted that they substantially agree with the recommendations of the study with a number of exceptions. The exceptions pertain to issues such as when the installation of the recommended traffic control signals will occur and the length of storage and taper for turn lanes. The exceptions can be addressed during detailed site plan review should this rezoning be approved. WATER: This site must connect to the City water supply system. There is an 8-inch City water line along Monument Drive, a 12-inch City water line along Lynnhaven Parkway, and a 16-inch City water transmission line along Centerville Turnpike. SEWER: This site must connect to the City sanitary sewer system. Analysis of Pump Station 462 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an 8-inch City gravity line along Monument Drive, and a 20-inch City force main along Centerville Turnpike. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: A Condominium Association or Civic League Association will need to be created to ensure responsibility for the best management practice facilities located on the site. The association must sign and record a Stormwater Management Maintenance Agreement for the best management practices. The Agreement should contain and reference any agreements with Dominion Virginia Power for allowing the use within the 120-foot wide Virginia Power easement. PARKS AND RECREATION: The Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan and the City's Bikeways and Trails Plan identify and promote the shared use path currently under construction in the CIP 2-257 Lynnhaven Parkway / Volvo Parkway road project as part of the City's system of shared use / pedestrian connectivity. The applicant should consider pedestrian connections from the interior of the site to the planned sidewalks along Lynnhaven Parkway and Monument Drive. Staff will work with the developer during detailed site plan review to insure the sidewalk connections are accomplished. OCEAN PROPERITES, LLC Agenda Item 1 Page 3 SCHOOLS: School Current Enrollment Capacity , Generation 2 Change Tallwood Elementary 594 674 12 12 Brandon Middle 1,389 1,382 6 6 Tallwood High 1 1,961 12,143 19 1 9 "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). POLICE: The applicant should review the site design features around the fountain, common areas, and amphitheater to determine an appropriate method of discouraging skateboards, rollerblades, and small scooters. The use of brick pavers in these areas would be beneficial toward that goal. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the submitted proffers. The proffers are provided below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area a Primary Residential Area. The overriding objective of the Plan's policies for the Primary Residential Areas is to protect the predominantly suburban character that is defined, in large measure, by the stable neighborhoods of the area. In general terms, this means that the established type, size and relationship of land uses, both residential and non-residential, in and around neighborhood areas should serve as the guide when considering future development proposals. Developing a mix of compatible uses either within well -designed structures or well -designed tracts of land should also be considered in this area, provided such action contributes to the quality, attractiveness and livability of the neighborhood. Evaluation: The proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for mixed -use development in the area. The applicant has taken care to design a mixed -use project that will offer a mixture of residential dwellings in the form of lofts, flats, and dwellings above commercial uses. While the project is urban in design, it retains qualities of good suburban land use design with proposed residential structures adjacent to existing residential, and proposed commercial uses located on the main roadways. The proposed buildings along the perimeter of the site are residential in design and scale, and the more intense signature building is located within the interior of the site. The proposed density of the site at 14 dwelling units per acre is well below the 36 dwelling units to the acre allowed in the B-4 District, and is in keeping with several apartment complexes near the site. The mix of commercial uses into the development will not only be beneficial to the residents of the project but also those neighborhoods near the site. The proposed commercial uses also present a unique opportunity to attract those residents in the area who would normally shop and dine in Chesapeake. Overall the proposal is well designed and compatible with the surrounding uses. OCEAN PROPERITES;. i_LC Agenda item 1 Page 4 PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Site Layout Plan of The Cascades at Woods Corner Centerville Tnpk. / Lynnhaven Pkwy. Virginia Beach, VA", dated 5131/06, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Concept Plan").. PROFFER 2: When the mixed use buildings and residential buildings depicted on the Concept Plan are developed, they will be in substantial compliance with the Mixed Use Development Guidelines contained in the Grantee's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the exterior of the buildings shall be substantially similar in architectural features, details and appearance to the exhibits entitled, (1) "SIGNATURE BUILDING CONCEPTUALS", (2) "RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ELEVATOINS", AND (3) MIXED USE BUILDING ELEVATIONS", "WOODS WATCH, A Mixed Use Village for Virginia Beach", prepared by RDA, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. PROFFER 3: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers are acceptable as they insure the site and buildings will be developed in accordance with the submitted conceptual site layout plan and architectural concept elevations. The submitted conceptual site layout plan depicts a coordinated development of the site in terms of design, parking layout, traffic control and circulation within the site, stormwater management, and landscaping. The submitted architectural concept elevations depict structures that will maintain a residential scale along the rights -of -ways while providing a signature building as the focal point within the interior of the site. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated 28 June 2006, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention OfFce within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. OCEAN PROPERiTES, LLC Agenda Item 1 Page 5 -cb ri liO lt 00 -HUN —9 gKi P-1 1 7 0 0 U S. C U v 1.0 co SITE PLAN U r PROPOSE g PIROPF-Fk I-V -S, LLC OCEA1 plllli Item ' page 7 t '-'\�OLLVATM- 0-MG-1L.Iq )- ; a- tr PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS OCEAN PROPERITES, LLC Agenda Item I Page 8 ago&< ' Ila I VX-TIOSS WG' apoSE'D ocew PFo, ger,da Iteo Fag, ID- oLL PROPOSED BUILG OCEAN PROPERITES, LLI- Agenda Item i Page 10 3xoLLVAa,Ia,o(llq IJ-oq qvUl-KaGis;�IX PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS : - OCEAN PROPERITES, LLC Agenda Item 1 Page 11 OceanLLC r tl 07 M�4 �,..,"" w;F.�'`o��f�F'^ >'`fFr.,rt',^�,�""rr.•`.`' T "{4. .,„»..: �r Y FaT' •%J' r3j� , F Fes,/`. pa, '••F r ,i,+. t` ,� JI ta VIi Corn"hC3nn,i 6wwir. r hxn., r to g i"r 1. 2. 3. 5/22/01 11/10/75 1/12/ 9 1/25/ 44 Conditional Use Permit (Automobile Service Station) Rezoning R-6 Residential to B-2 Business UConditional Use Permit Borrow Pit Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Facility— Driving Range and future Miniature Golf Course Withdrawn Approved -Approved Approved 4. 8/13/02 Conditional Use Permit (Home Dav Care) Annrnvcri ZONING HISTORY OCEAN PROPERITES, LLC Agenda. Item 1 Page 12 <rx rV oo° m ctyacm m y c7 to F^' �y G c r�or�cmmU r v t� �ycc 'C6413 r� �s 4 0mw s Ss a �c w e mL9 m'5'�J Q rSi r Q•� uaF ��ro cm�'� �wop�m�o �:� m O� ffj .V G 87 D c5 C O- m G7 N iY t� CC, cam oss,ai bmcmwE��jo�� ' sc rmaai'monmiwa tss Q'c uffi "rso m�wg 00 co raft cs rJ mo=� man o'ysa c!q 8 mr� r �t o 'T.� Siam g'=saaoso�e, cm o o p� a cs w 0, G a uF to �m4Uu7 aO>°w ccmcCcmWO °�SQJ C a�s e+ 4 tip- mj Ei 1} m d a w m 90 @ a,ly a r ; Ul u s A`C o S°UA b n c sear 7O� gyp. tiY G G �pp i� C Y„'C "G O.'�a O 9a U1 � F" isfl.� u� S $ Ill •d ipx w '- a• lz G a o q O L tm'-D t aSURE STpT M N pRCpE}-Ind; pCEA Agenda e Pa9 Item # 1 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Northwest intersection of Centerville Turnpike and Lynnhaven Parkway District 1 Centerville November 8, 2006 CONSENT Barry Kn. :It: The next item of business will be the consent items. The Vice Chair will handle this portion of the agenda. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. This morning we have 10 items on the consent agenda. The first item is agenda item #1, the application of Ocean Properties, L.L.C. This is for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use. This is the northwest intersection of Centerville Turnpike and Lynnhaven Parkway in the Centerville District. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Ms. Anderson, again, for the record, Eddie Bourdon representing the applicants who are here today. This is proffered rezoning. I only want to take a minute to thank Faith Christie for all her hard work on this application. We think that Cascades at Woods Corner is going to be an excellent development for the Centerville District. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Jay Bemas will review this matter. Jay Bemas: Thank you. This is a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 to B-4 Mixed Use, and it is located in the Centerville District, off of Centerville Turnpike and Lynnhaven Parkway. Basically, the applicant is proposing a mix of retail, restaurant, offices, bank, and multi -family condominium dwellings. Based on the elevations it absolutely looks amazing. I think the Commission is very excited to have this kind of development in this area. It is going to consist of fourteen buildings, a park, a stage, outdoor seating with a fountain, which I understand the fountain is going to be pretty unique, something that this area has not seen. It will have 192 residential condominiums, ranging in price from $200 — 300 thousand dollars. The entire development will be anchored around a signature building in the center of the property. This proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, which recommends mix use development for this area. The density is 14 units per acre is well below the 36 dwelling units per acre for this Item #1 Ocean Properties, L.L.C. Page 2 area. I think that with the way the Commission feels with the aesthetics, the location, what they're trying to do mixing condominiums with this retail development, and having that anchor signature building, I think this will be a great amenity for the City. We recommend it for the consent agenda. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Bernas. I make a motion to approve item #1 for consent. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? I have a second by Kathy Katsias. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY ABSENT KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved item #1 for consent. A; I. " ALEX,A.NDRIA CIVIC LEAGUE VI'RGFCJ9R BEACH, WA The Alexandria Civic League SUPPORTS the rezoning by Ocean Properties for the land located at Centerville Tpke and Lynnhaven Pkwy from B-2 to B4 as proposed to us at our monthly meeting on June 15, 2006. This proposed rezoning is to allow construction of 198 residential units and approximately 69,000 sq ft of commercial space. The commercial space would not only support those residential units but compliment them as well. After meeting with Ocean Properties, the members of the Alexandria Civic League voted to support the proposed rezoning and mixed use development. The developer has agreed to buffer the Alexandria development adjacent to the mixed use by ponds being used as best management practices and berms with heavy landscaping. The proposed development, Cascades at Woods Comer appears to fall within the "Mixed Use Development Guidelines" adopted by City Council on October 12, 2004. Of note, we are particular pleased with the site design, architecture, materials and outdoor amenities: Design — The current design provides interest at the street level to encourage walking and will enhance the pedestrian experience. Architecture — Buildings are divided into approximately 15 "modules" that provide visual interest. Materials — The developer has mentioned use of brick, synthetic stucco and other materials that will be pleasing to the eye. Outdoor Amenities — The current design incorporates outdoor dining areas, a grass seating area, a stage and a very unique musical water feature. We as a Virginia Beach neighborhood and civic league are impressed with the project and are looking forward to the Terry brothers (Ocean Properties) becoming part of our community. Please feel free to call me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Andrew J. Iamaio President Alexandria Civic League 5676 Glen View Dr. Virginia Beach, VA. 23464 963-2299(Home) 580-2299(Cell) www.alexandriavb.net president@alexandriavb.net In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6539 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: November 30, 2006 TO: Leslie L. Lilley ,� DEPT: City Attorney FROM: B. Kay Wilso DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application: Ocean Properties The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 12, 2006. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated June 28, 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/als Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen OCEAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company LILLEL FARMS, INC., a Virginia corporation TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 28th day of June, 20o6, by and between OCEAN PROPERTIES L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part; LILLEL FARMS, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of that certain parcel of property located in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 13.33 acres and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the party of the first part, being the contract purchaser of the Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District; FT 41 WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPIN: 1454-98-0202 1454-98-3391 PREPARED BY: M SYM, BOURDON, A14EI2N & Lam. R.C. 1 WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantors' proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Site Layout Plan of The Cascades at Woods Corner Centerville Tnpk./Lynnhaven Pkwy. Virginia Beach, VA", dated 5/31/o6, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Concept Plan"). 2. When the mixed use buildings and residential buildings depicted on the Concept Plan are developed, they will be in substantial compliance with the Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Development Guidelines contained in the Grantee's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the SYKKS. BOURDON. exterior of the buildings shall be substantially similar in architectural features, details and M Ag�2N & LT. P.C. appearance to the exhibits entitled, (1) "SIGNATURE BUILDING RENDERING", (2) 2 "SIGNATURE BUILDING ELEVATIONS", (3) "RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS", (4) "MIXED USE BUILDING ELEVATIONS", and (5) "RESIDENTIAL LOFT BLDG. ELEVATIONS", "THE CASCADES AT WOODS CORNER, A Mixed Use Village for Virginia Beach", prepared by RDA, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Cascades Renderings"). 3. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. All references hereinabove to the B-2 and B-4 Districts and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be PREPARED BY: vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia MSYKES. P©URDflN, Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, A14ERN & LEVY. P.C. including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such 3 PREPARED BY: M SYRES. BOURDON, dH A1i£RN & L£vY. P.c. conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. 4 WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: Ocean Properties, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company n� By: r'C,; rl `'`� (SEAL) David Terry, Managg Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3rd day of July, 2oo6, by David Terry, Managing Member of Ocean Properties, L.L.C., a Virginia li-mited liability company, Grantor. J Notary Public My Commission Expires: PREPARED BY: 01SYKES, ROURDON, 01 Auiz T & Li 1. Y.C. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: Lillel Farms, Inc., a Virginia corporation By: (SEAL) Title: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowled ed before me this day of July, 20o6, by Ix Irl of Lillel Farms, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Grantor. My Commission Expires:, PREPARED BY: M SYKES, BOURDON, MU AMERN & LEVY. P.0 Notary Public PREPARED BY: SYKKS. ROURDON. [ -99ZN & LEVY, P.C. EXHIBIT " A' Parcel is ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as "PARCEL 4 9.469 ACRES", as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF ALEX C. AND VIRGINIA S. BROWN, FEBRUARY 20, 1985, KEMPSVILLE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA', which plat was made by Talbot & Associates, Ltd., recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2433, at Pages 26o and 261. GPIN: 1454-98-3391 Parcel 2: ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, together with all appurtenances thereunto belonging, being designated as "Residual Parcel" and depicted on that certain plat entitled "RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF LILLEL FARMS, INC., Lynnhaven Parkway and Monument Drive, formerly Kempsville Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia", 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 271, at Pages 65 and 66. GPIN: 1454-98-0202 ConditionalRezone/OceanProperties/CascadesatWoodsCorner/Proffer 7 -51 - Item V-K.5. PLANNING ITEM # 54548 (Continued) This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 69 of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Twenty-fifth of Two Thousand Five Voting: 10-1 Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Robert M. Dyer, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Council Members Absent: None October 25, 2005 - 50 - Item V--K.5. PLANNING ITEM # 54548 (Continued) 3. There shall be no parking or displaying of boats for any reason within the City right-of-way, on any grassed area or beyond the limits of the designated display area depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C., " prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers. 4. There shall be no parking or displaying of boats on the asphalt on the west side of the structure identified as "Showroom, " on the plan entitled, `Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C., " prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers. S. A Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval prior to the approval of the final site plan. 6. Any freestanding sign shall be monument in style and shall be in substantial conformance with the sign detail depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L. C., " prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers. The existing sign face currently used at the applicant's existing location of 3304 Shore Drive, may be utilized for this site provided the sign face meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. The sign height shall be limited to six (6) feet. 7. The hours and days of operation shall be limited to 9:00 am to S: 00 pm, Monday through Saturday. The showroom may be open Monday through Saturday. 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 8. All boat and engine service and repair work shall be performed indoors. 9. Outdoor storage of inoperable boats, engines or repair parts shall not be permitted. 10. The sidewalk shall be extended to the eastern property line fronting on Shore Drive. 11. If, In -order to minimize noise eminatingfrom the buildings the applicant will be required to insulate the sides and rear walls of the buildings facing residential properties. Ortnhvr 75 inn s Item V-K.5. PLANNING ITEM # 54548 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Wood, City Council ADOPTED with MODIFIED CONDITION#11, an Ordinance upon application ofDEEP BLUE MARINE, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPONAPPLICA TION OF DEEP BL UE MARINE, L.L.C. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BOAT SALES AND SERVICE RO100534131 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon Application of Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for boat sales and service on property located at 3716 Shore Drive (GPINs 14894941480000; 14894940670000). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE The following conditions shall be required: 1. Upgrades to the site shall be in substantial conformance with the plan entitled, `Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C., " prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers including, but not limited to, paved areas, additional landscaping, fencing, and signage. 2. Prior to the issuance ofan Occupancy Permitfrom the Building Official's Office, the following conditions shall be met: a. the existing metal buildings, including the roofs, shall be painted a white or earth tone color (other colors may be used for trim and details); b. all landscape material depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L. C., "prepared by WPL, LandscapeArchitects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers shall be installed; c. the existing chain link fence shall be removed and replaced with a fence in substantial conformance with the decorative, white, vinyl fence depicted on theplan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L. C., "prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers; d. all illegal trailers and/or storage containers shall be removed from the site; October 25, 2005 G 3 e,e Deep Blue marine L,j u 21 a I R IM It Ai ._.gar"` �. A; . � ��►.,��. � MO(71/1Cd[lOn Ol LUnuUuunN CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C. for a Modification of Conditions on property located at 3716 Shore Drive (GPINs 1489494148; 1489494067). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 ■ Background: The applicant requests modification of Conditions 1 and 2(b) attached to the Use Permit granted by the City Council on October 25, 2005, which pertain to the required landscape plantings and site improvements. ■ Considerations: Conditions 1 and 2(b) indicate the improvements required by the 2005 Use Permit. The applicant has discovered that the approved and required planting plan and several site modifications are not workable. According to the applicant, these aspects of the plan were negotiated by the real estate agent and were, apparently, not communicated correctly to the applicant. The applicant notes that the approved planting plan will be difficult for the applicant to adhere to. In light of this, the applicant is requesting a modification to the 2005 approval. Below is a summary of the proposed modifications: A. The boat display area will be gravel, not paved; B. The fence along the eastern property line will be installed as depicted on the revised plan (3 feet from the property line with one row of landscaping and will connect to the existing fence on the adjacent property); C. Landscaping along the eastern property line will be reduced as depicted on the revised plan; D. A gate and pedestrian walk for customers to enter the display area in front of the showroom is proposed; E. Live oak trees will be added to the planting area near Dupont Circle, and; F. The paved area adjacent to the building (on the southwest side) will remain and landscaping will be added within a 10 foot area north of the pavement. The proposed modification is acceptable with the exception of the request to use gravel rather than concrete or asphalt on the boat display area. This site and surrounding properties have benefited greatly from the improvements that the applicant has done on this site to date. These upgrades have included: enhancing the landscaping, removing the chain link and barbed wire fence and replacing it with attractive fencing, painting the existing structures, striping the parking lot, and soundproofing the service building. Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 The former plan depicted landscaping along the eastern property line along the wall of an existing structure set almost at the property line. That landscaping, however, would not have been seen from Shore Drive or by the adjacent property owner. The majority of the original conditions of approval will remain, such as limiting days and hours of operation, confining display and parking areas, limiting work and storage areas, upgrading the appearance of the buildings and improving the overall appearance of the site. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they concluded that the requested modifications were appropriate, Staff recommended approval, and there was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: �. All conditions with the exception of Number 1 and 2(b) attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council October 25, 2005, shall remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 1 and 2(b) of the October 25, 2005, Conditional Use Permit are deleted. Condition 1 is replaced with the following: The site shall be developed as depicted on the revised plan entitled, "Revised Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, LLC, dated August 28, 2006, prepared by WPL, with the exception of the boat display area, which must be paved with an all weather surface, not including gravel. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: Qrs k :2�t�q DEEP BLUE MARINE, LLC Agenda Item 6 November 8, 2006 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A. K. Smith REQUEST: Modification of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on October 25, 2005 for boat sales. Map G 3 DeeP Blue Marine LLC Nn. � 1 ;4 It p, ,31 Modification of Conditions ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3716 Shore Drive. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14894940670000 4 - BAYSIDE 0.566 acres 14894941480000 The Conditional Use Permit allowing boat sales and service SUMMARY OF REQUEST was approved by the City Council on October 25, 2005. The Conditional Use Permit has 9 conditions: 1. Upgrades to the site shall be in substantial conformance with the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers including, but not limited to, paved areas, additional landscaping, fencing, and signage. 2. Prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit from the Building Official's Office the following conditions shall be met: a. the existing metal buildings, including the roofs, shall be painted a white or earth tone color (other colors may be used for trim and details); b. all landscape material depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers shall be installed; c. the existing chain link fence shall be removed and replaced with a fence in substantial conformance with the decorative, white, vinyl fence depicted on the plan entitled, DEEP BLUE MARINE Agenda Item 6 Page 1 "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers; d. all illegal trailers and/or storage containers shall be removed from the site; 3. There shall be no parking or displaying of boats for any reason within the City right-of-way, on any grassed area or beyond the limits of the designated display area depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers. 4. There shall be no parking or displaying of boats on the asphalt on the west side of the structure identified as "Showroom," on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers. 5. A Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval prior to the approval of the final site plan. 6. Any freestanding sign shall be monument in style and shall be in substantial conformance with the sign detail depicted on the plan entitled, "Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, L.L.C.," prepared by WPL, Landscape Architects, Surveyors, & Civil Engineers. The existing sign face currently used at the applicant's existing location of 3304 Shore Drive, may be utilized for this site provided the sign face meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. The sign height shall be limited to six (6) feet. 7. The hours and days of operation shall be limited to 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. 8. All boat and engine service and repair work shall be performed indoors. 9. Outdoor storage of inoperable boats, engines or repair parts shall not be permitted. Condition 1 and 2(b) above indicate the improvements required as part of the recommendation for approval. The applicant has discovered that the approved and required planting plan and several site modifications are not acceptable. According to the applicant, these aspects of the plan were negotiated by the real estate agent and were, apparently, not communicated correctly to the applicant. The applicant notes that the approved planting plan will be difficult for the applicant to adhere to. In light of this, the applicant is requesting a modification to the 2005 approval. Below is a summary of the proposed modifications: A. The boat display area will be gravel, not paved; B. The fence along the eastern property line will be installed as depicted on the revised plan (3 feet from the property line with one row of landscaping and will connect to the existing fence on the adjacent property); C. Landscaping along the eastern property line will be reduced as depicted on the revised plan; D. A gate and pedestrian walk for customers to enter the display area in front of the showroom is proposed; E. Live oak trees will be added to the planting area near Dupont Circle, and; DEEP BLUE MARINE Agenda Item.6 Page 2 F. The paved area adjacent to the building (on the southwest side) will remain and landscaping will be added within a 10 foot area north of the pavement. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The almost entirely impervious site has two (2) structures with a boat sales and repair business currently operating on site. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Single-family dwelling / R-5R Residential District USE AND ZONING: South: . Shore Drive, retail / B-2 Community Business District East: . Office, retail, duplex / B-2 Community Business District, R-5R Residential District West: . Dupont Circle, single-family homes / R-5R Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed; however, there are no CULTURAL FEATURES: significant environmental features on the site as it is almost entirely impervious. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Shore Drive is considered a four (4) lane urban arterial roadway. The MTP designates this section of Shore Drive as a proposed 150-foot wdie, divided facility with a multi -use path. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Shore Drive 36,285 ADT 17,300 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use — Service "C") — 31,700 ADT 131 ADT ' (Level of Service "E") Proposed Land Use 3- 131 ADT ' Average Daily Trips z as defined by boat sales and service 3 no change expected WATER: There is a six (6) inch water main in Dupont Circle. This site already has an existing water tap that may be used or upgraded. DEEP "BLUE MARINE Agenda Item 6 Page 3 SEWER: There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in Dupont Circle and an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in Shore Drive. City sanitary sewer is available. Sanitary sewer and pump station analysis for pump station #308 may be required to determine if flows can be accommodated. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this requested modification, as conditioned below. Evaluation: The proposed modification is acceptable with the exception of the request to use gravel rather than concrete or asphalt on the boat display area. This site and surrounding properties have benefited greatly from the improvements that the applicant has done on this site to date. These upgrades have included: enhancing the landscaping, removing the chain link and barbed wire fence and replacing it with attractive fencing, painting the existing structures, striping the parking lot, and soundproofing the service building. The former plan depicted landscaping along the eastern property line along the wall of an existing structure set almost at the property line. None of that landscaping would have been seen from Shore Drive or by the adjacent property owner; so, Staff is supportive of its removal from the exhibit. Staff is recommending that the majority of the original conditions of approval remain, such as limiting days and hours of operation, confining display and parking areas, limiting work and storage areas, upgrading the appearance of the buildings and improving the overall appearance of the site. CONDITIONS 1. All conditions with the exception of Number 1 and 2(b) attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council October 25, 2005, shall remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 1 and 2(b) of the October 25, 2005, Conditional Use Permit are deleted. Condition 1 is replaced with the following: The site shall be developed as depicted on the revised plan entitled, "Revised Planting Plan and Exhibit, Deep Blue Marine Sales & Service, LLC, dated August 28, 2006, prepared by WPL, with the exception of the boat display that must be paved with an all weather surface, not including gravel. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. DEEP BLUE MARINE Agenda Item 6 Page 4 °Nq R4 Md1Y •9Qllti W9TVlY StlM O S I�AGp y 4=^4000 �SbN SAG! IIICM GUOQ�Mt lrJlC•p LOfaTld GR !!GM'Ylp� a!M %IM DGGORATIx GRIGC pK REVISED PLANMG PLAY @ EXMW S. 3 ' DEEP BLUE MARINE SALES & SERVICES, LLC SVP1. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT$ SURVEYORS,- xG sisn ~- 1 AI�A b^0619 D6GORATM Ircl. TY.!• T'J GGTiG T � OpSTta GIIAPYS GIMRLRK RG[ 3 7 ?UPI �3'., y M�w yyC 2v DUPLcX �� _tatmcr lRaroY.T my - WlTnK CNAINL:!ac TeNG! I,LAx 7CiTOl1Q EW�111� --Gil/dKfYC � i%. Otis. OF .N--RS "i7:b SHO-r -nw'vwp cum L'Y.x 5-1a or wcnrs rwo:m /6•ne :ro rb GwJryNx r@rg INIm SM AGGG!! EAT 4W MODIFIED SITE PLAN DEEP BLUE MARINE Agenda Item 6 ._ , Page 6 DEEP BLUE MARINE SALES & SERVICES, LLC 2005 APPROVED SITE PLAN DEEP BLUE MARINE Agenda Item 6 Page 7 1 10/26/05 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (boat sales & Granted service 2 11/25/03 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(multi-family in B-4 Granted 3 07/02/02 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (modification of boat Granted sales & small engine repair) 05/09/00 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (boat sales & small engine repair) Granted CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (storage) 03/28/88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (fuel sales) Granted 01 /28/85 Granted 4 1 12/17/96 STREET CLOSURE Denied 5 03/27/89 CHANGE OF ZONING P-1 Granted 6 01/24/83 CHANGE OF ZONING B-2 to B-4 Withdrawn 7 01/24/83 CHANGE OF ZONING R-8 to B-4 Withdrawn ZONING HISTORY DEEP BLUE MARINE Agenda Item 6 Page 8 Item #6 Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C. Modification of Conditions 2716 Shore Drive District 4 Bayside November 8, 2006 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next matter is agenda item #6, Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C. It's an application for a Modification of Conditions of a Use Permit for property located at 3716 Shore Drive in the Bayside District. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Ms. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, for the record, Eddie Bourdon representing the applicants who are here today. We appreciate the Commission placing this matter on the consent agenda with the revised conditions, and my client is aware of the Commission's and staff s requirement that the gravel area be paved, which is one of the modifications on the plan. I do also want to indicate that they are aware there is additional landscaping in front of the building. There was a problem with getting both the materials. Some of the material not being available and having been over subscribed. So, there is more landscaping coming. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? The Chairman has asked Ron Ripley to review this matter. Ronald Ripley: The Planning Commission placed this on the consent agenda after discussing it thoroughly. This is a matter that was approved by the Commission not too long ago. It is a redevelopment of a parcel of property on Shore Drive, and Shore Drive is very sensitive to the City and the Commission. Kathy Katsias and myself serve on the Shore Drive Advisory Committee, and the Committee and the neighborhoods are all really concerned about everything being upgraded. This property came in and offered a very nice plan originally. What the applicant has simply come back and asked to adjust the plan slightly, and we looked at it. The adjustment that he has made is essentially on the east side of the property line that abuts a commercial building that runs right up to the property line, and part of that was there was a landscaping area there, which didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Then there was a landscaping area in the far right hand corner that he asked to be removed, and we looked at it. We think it is appropriate. There is proper screening between the properties with an eight -foot high vinyl clad fence versus a six-foot vinyl clad fence. So we felt that putting it on the consent agenda was appropriate. That is why we did it. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Ripley. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve item #6 for consent. Item #6 Deep Blue Marine, L.L.C. Page 2 Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? I have a second by Kathy Katsias. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 10 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has approved item #6 for consent. L. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TASK FORCE HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HREDA) HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE-PPEA OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OLD BEACH DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING COMMISSION SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT