The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJANUARY 8, 2008 AGENDA I, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF. At-lArge VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES. Bayside - District 4 WILLIAM R. DeSTEPH. At-lArge HARRY E. DIEZEL. Kempsville - District 2 ROBERT M DYER" Centerville - District 1 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 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRiVE VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 234568005 PHONE:(757) 385-4303 FAX (757) 385-5669 E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com CITY MANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE CITY ATTORNEY - LESLIE L. LILLEY CITY CLERK - RUTH HODGES FRASER, MMC 08 JANUARY 2008 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1:00 PM A. CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS Jeannine Perry, Project Manager- Continental Research Association, Inc. B. PROPERTY MAX/WEB SITE FOR VIEWING REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENTS Jerald Banagan, Real Estate Assessor C. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Chief Steve Cover, Fire Department II. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. REVIEW OF AGENDA V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 3:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor MeyeraE. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Kevin Milcarek Pastor, Back Bay Christian Assembly 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 11, 2007 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ELECTION PRECINCT CHANGE at BUCKNER: from Holy Spirit Catholic Church to Green Run Baptist Church 2. CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FY 2007-08 Urban Area Strategic Initiative Interoperable Communications Technology Grant I. CONSENT AGENDA I I J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN Section 10-1 of the City Code moving Buckner Precinct Polling Place to Green Run Baptist Church 2. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments: a. Dana R. Jackson into Island Lake to construct and maintain one hundred nineteen (119) linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, five-foot (5') return, five-foot x sixteen-foot (5'xI6') access pier leading to a four-foot x 32-foot (4'x32') finger pier and a twelve-foot x twelve-foot (12'xI2') 10,000 pound boatlift supported by four (4) eight inch x 30-foot (8"x30') wood piles at the rear of2400 Windward Shore Drive DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN b. James B., Jr. and Terri L. Ewing and Glen A. and M. Nicole Williams into Lake Rudee to construct and maintain a portion of an open pile pier at the rear of 726 Kennedy Avenue DISTRICT 6 - BEACH c. 11 th Street L.C. (AKA 11th Street L.L.C.) into a portion of 11 th Street, Atlantic and Ocean Avenues to construct and maintain landscaping, concrete pavers, cobblestone and drip irrigation system including a 4" PVC irrigation sleeve and a 2" PVC irrigation electric wiring sleeve DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 3. Ordinance to CREATE anew Capital Budget item and APPROPRIATE $3,213,780 from the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program for procuring services and equipment necessary in the implementation of the Hampton Roads Overlay Regional Interoperability Network (ORION). 4. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $48,000 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies re the City's share of costs for the Tidewater Builders Association's (TBA) Building Trades Academy to provide low income Virginia Beach residents a pre-apprenticeship program for future employment in the residential construction industry. 5. Resolution SUPPORTING multi-modal accommodations for interim improvements to City rights-of-way to enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists (requested by Council Lady Rosemary Wilson). 6. Resolution to EXPRESS SUPPORT for a Regional Waste Management Study by providing partial funding re Landfill #2 expansion and to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute the Virginia Beach portion of the Study to include a review of the existing (SPSA) system and evaluate needs for the future 2018 to 2050. K. PLANNING 1. Variance to ~4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Subdivision for RJP, L.L.c., at 204 62nd Street re subdividing an existing lot into two (2) lots and redeveloping a single-family dwelling on each of the newly created lots. DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 2. Application of FOR PETE'S SAKE, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit re a riding academy and horses for hire or boarding at 2428 London Bridge Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3. Application of HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit re a columbarium at 5350 Providence Road. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 4. Application of NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. for the Modification to a Conditional Change of Zoning request (approved by City Council on October 25,2005 for S & J LLC) at 3762 Shore Drive and 3707 Stratford Road DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 5. Ordinances to AMEND: a. Sections 405, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806, and 1807 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) establishing restrictions on development of property within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and ADDING provisions re redevelopment of property in Air Installations Compatible Use Noise Zones (AICUZ) b. Official Zoning Map by ADDING Sub-Areas 1,2 and 3 of the 65 -70 dB DNL Noise Zone c. Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions re the 65 - 70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and a Map of Sub-Areas 1,2, and 3 of the 65 -70 dB DNL Noise Zones RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL I I, L. APPOINTMENTS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (CSB) RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNI,TY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (VBCDC) M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT ********************************** PUBLIC COMMENTS Non-Agenda Items ********************************** CITY COUNCIL'S JANUARY 2008 SCHEDULE January 15, 2008 Workshop 4 - 6 PM January 22, 2008 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning February 19, 2008 Virginia Beach Convention Center 7 - 9 PM City-wide Town Meeting Storm water Plans and Funding ********* 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 Ol/08/20008gw Vvww.vbl!ov.com I I I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1:00 PM A. CITIZEN SA TISF ACTION SURVEY RESULTS Jeannine Perry, Project Manager- Continental Research Association, Inc. B. PROPERTY MAXlWEB SITE FOR VIEWING REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENTS Jerald Banagan, Real Estate Assessor C. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Chief Steve Cover, Fire Department II. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. REVIEW OF AGENDA i V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf 3:00 PM B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Kevin Mi1carek Pastor, Back Bay Christian Assembly 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 11, 2007 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION .rsolutinu 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 ofthe 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 HEARINGS 1. ELECTION PRECINCT CHANGE at BUCKNER: from Holy Spirit Catholic Church to Green Run Baptist Church 2. CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FY 2007-08 Urban AreaStrategic Initiative Interoperable Communications Technology Grant ~ (~~t:.. &1;.~:' .... _",,,'f:.. ~'oi: ....;.. -::'.. ~ '> t~~ ~ PUBLIC HEARING CHANGING POlliNG LOCATION CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH The City Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia at its formal session on January 8, 2008 at 6:00 P.M. will consider an ordinance to make changes to the polling location for the Buckner Precinct. The ordinance proposes that the Buckner Precinct polling place be moved from Holy Spirit Catholic Church at 1396 Lynnhaven Parkway to Green Run Baptist Church at 1201 Rosemont Road. After adoption by City Council. these changes will become effective following approval by the United States Department of Justice, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, <lnd will be effective for the June 10, 2008 Primary Election. Descriptions and maps of the polling place change, as well as a copy of the aforesaid ordinance, may be inspected in the Voter Registrar's Office, which is located at 2449 Princess Anne Road, Municipal Center, Building 14, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 23456. Tile Public Hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chamber of the Administration Building (Building #1) at the Municipal Center. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303. Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC City Clerk Beacon Dec. 23 and 30. 2007 18087592 0) .c RI 0)"'- .c:O)c _CoRl ...C... _Rl~. c:i; Cl .- c:; ...... ~ c,c ~= Cl RI RI .... O).=! t.:)C ~>C CO'- M:;::: C Q 'E ~.!!-fi ~ 0 cw)'== 0) g g 0= ~ N-__Ucn c.- C u..>.~ c:;'~ Cl. C - RI -C'-RlU C..C;...- -c,.-(;)C Cc,... = O)cz:: g-RI E E ... f E ~ g;cz:: C 0) < C t.:) E RI cz:: of! :J - 0) Cl ~ = = ~O.~~:5 ::scJ!!"';'"1:J :~ ~ M :; "'C"CCI)-~ og-Zt;5 .c a<-E..! ~~~ct! ~!!.!-e~ g 4~~:;U~ $~~=~ .g--g S i! ~ ::: ~:ECJ ~ m ftI ~ >u <<S = () a)_ cCL.CDoca ~lJ~g~ S:CD~"fi~ -9"i)Q)- Ol:;EFN ~~~~~ U 00 ~CL:o~~ =e'E.!:!C5 ~:5ES~ g.si~.! ::1_ g.o~ 85;00- CIJ.gu:ifD'!! ;;c::):C~ui aiCl)4)f!E.2 g Ii;: 8.~-g C'\I EOC:- cafiiei!.!o ~c-ccc ftSO~-:.2 ~ ~~.~-8~ -'~in]!~:5 5 .! ~~ c.=6 ~S-m:~d ~ go~.2a;~ :E en ~.::::a CD ow;- ~o-g..cng~ _u-..:.::sco g<c~s.!!!g _ai":;U:C? .zc:e~ca:: E'5>-ual'" ca=..5!ClJG)> c3~B:S.;-ii _~.- mea: ~=iS~:.!! ::SID_en g ~= Os~E.ca~ (,.) c..!:! 0 Q.S; .5 '5>U U E = E:;~~:2-~ ci.~O~~-g- O'E.!ocn- c::!cu-'1:J>m CQU.5~'" CL a;fti.!!!E~.5 -g~.g so!! ~ g~~m=~ "'CI:;;",E=a~ 5 _CD E >- . u g'~ 8 7i S ~~~ii~Y _ ::s en = >oil) ~~~.i-a~ ~~~:5!ra1j ta~C>::SCl) .!u e ~!m ~.!;.s-:c.. :g = ~ ~S g; CL.~ 8.-.::y:;::o ~ge1i~:R t-:;::: a.."1:JC"':. E .: CD en .... It: en CD .g~ OCD ~- J::u ->- ::s= a:u , I I. CONSENT AGENDA J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance to AMEND and REORDAIN Section 10-1 of the City Code moving Buckner Precinct Polling Place to Green Run Baptist Church 2. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments: a. Dana R. Jackson into Island Lake to construct and maintain one hundred nineteen (119) linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, five-foot (5') return, five-foot x sixteen-foot (5'xI6') access pier leading to a four-foot x 32-foot (4'x32') finger pier and a twelve-foot x twelve-foot (12'xI2') 10,000 pound boatlift supported by four (4) eight inch x 30-foot (8"x30') wood piles at the rear of2400 Windward Shore Drive DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN b. James B., Jr. and Terri L. Ewing and Glen A. and M. Nicole Williams into Lake Rudee to construct and maintain a portion of an open pile pier at the rear of 726 Kennedy Avenue DISTRICT 6 - BEACH c. 11 th Street L.C. (AKA 11th Street L.L.C.) into a portion of 11 th Street, Atlantic and Ocean Avenues to construct and maintain landscaping, concrete pavers, cobblestone and drip irrigation system including a 4" PVC irrigation sleeve and a 2" PVC irrigation electric wiring sleeve DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 3. Ordinance to CREATE a new Capital Budget item and APPROPRIATE $3,213,780 from the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program for procuring services and equipment necessary in the implementation of the Hampton Roads Overlay Regional Interoperability Network (ORION). 4. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $48,000 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies re the City's share of costs for the Tidewater Builders Association's (TBA) Building Trades Academy to provide low income Virginia Beach residents a pre-apprenticeship program for future employment in the residential construction industry. 5. Resolution SUPPORTING multi-modal accommodations for interim improvements to City rights-of-way to enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists (requested by Council Lady Rosemary Wilson). 6. Resolution to EXPRESS SUPPORT for a Regional Waste Management Study by providing partial funding re Landfill #2 expansion and to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute the Virginia Beach portion of the Study to include a review of the existing (SPSA) system and evaluate needs for the future 2018 to 2050. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Section 10-1 of the City Code by Moving Buckner Precinct Polling Place MEETING DATE: January 8,2008 . Background: The Virginia Beach Electoral Board voted on December 18, 2007 to move the Buckner Precinct polling place to Green Run Baptist Church. . Considerations: The location meets the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This change will become effective upon approval by the U.S. Department of Justice, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, beginning with the June 10, 2008 Primary Election. . Public Information: As required by Virginia Code 9 24.2-306, notice of this proposed change was published in the Virginian Pilot once a week for two consecutive weeks. All voters in the precinct will receive new voter cards with the name and address of the new polling location. An advertisement will be placed in the newspaper prior to the Primary Election to be held on June 10, 2008. . Attachments: Ordinance. Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Edith M. "Pat" Harrington, Voter Registrar.btiJ- CityMana~ l.~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN SECTION 10- 1 OF THE CITY CODE BY MOVING BUCKNER PRECINCT POLLING PLACE SECTION AMENDED: S 10-1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 10-1 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: Sec. 10-1. Establishment of precincts and polling places. There are hereby established in the city the following precincts and their respective polling places, as set forth below: Precinct Polling Place Alanton Elementary School Kemps Landing Magnet School Arrowhead Elementary School Avalon Church of Christ Ebenezer Baptist Church Bayside Elementary School Salem Middle School Blackwater Fire Station Virginia Beach Free Will Baptist Church Brandon Middle School Bow Creek Recreation Center Holy Spirit C3tholic Church Green Run Baptist Church Research and Enlightenment Building (Edgar Cayce Library) Back Bay Christian Assembly Centerville Elementary School Bayside Baptist Church College Park Elementary School Colonial Baptist Church Lynnhaven Colony Congregational Church Corporate Landing Middle School Courthouse Fire Station Creeds Fire Station Salem United Methodist Church Ocean Lakes High School Green Run High School 1 Alanton Aragona Arrowhead Avalon Baker Bayside Bellamy Blackwater Bonney Brandon Brookwood Buckner Cape Henry Capps Shop Centerville Chesapeake Beach College Park Colonial Colony Corporate Landing Courthouse Creeds Cromwell Culver Dahlia 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Davis Corner Eastern Shore Edinburgh Edwin Fairfield Foxfire Glenwood Great Neck Green Run Haygood Hillcrest Precinct Holland Homestead Hunt Indian Lakes Kings Grant Kingston Lake Christopher Lake Joyce Lake Smith Landstown Larkspur Lexington Linkhorn Little Neck London Bridge Lynnhaven Magic Hollow Malibu Manor M1. Trashmore Newtown North Beach North Landing Ocean Lakes Ocean Park Oceana Old Donation Pembroke Pinewood Plaza Pleasant Hall Point O'View Red Wing Reon Rock Lake Bettie F. Williams Elementary School Eastern Shore Chapel S1. Aidan's Episcopal Church Kempsville Recreation Center Kempsville Presbyterian Church Princess Anne Middle School Glenwood Elementary School All Saints Episcopal Church Green Run Elementary School Haygood United Methodist Church Victory Baptist Church Holland Elementary School Providence Presbyterian Church Princess Anne Recreation Center Indian Lakes Elementary School S1. Nicholas Catholic Church King's Grant Presbyterian Church New Convenant Presbyterian Church Morning Star Baptist Church Bayside Church of Christ Landstown Community Church S1. Andrews United Methodist Church Kempsville Church of God Virginia Beach Community Chapel Lynnhaven United Methodist Church London Bridge Baptist Church Grace Bible Church Roma Lodge No. 254 Malibu Elementary School Providence Elementary School Windsor Woods Elementary School Good Samaritan Episcopal Church Galilee Episcopal Church Hope Haven Ocean Lakes Elementary School Bayside Community Recreation Center Scott Memorial United Methodist Church Old Donation Center for Gifted Pembroke Elementary School Lynnhaven Presbyterian Church Lynnhaven Elementary School Kempsville Baptist Church Pleasant Hall Annex Kempsville Church of Christ Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #8 Woodstock Elementary School Salem Elementary Schoolo2 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 Rosemont Forest Roundhill Rudee Seatack Shannon Shelburne Shell Shelton Park Sherry Park Sigma South Beach Stratford Chase Strawbridge Tallwood Thalia Thoroughgood Timberlake Trantwood Upton Village Windsor Oaks Witchduck Wolfsnare Central Absentee Voter Precinct , I Rosemont Forest Elementary School Salem High School Virginia Beach Volunteer Rescue Squad Building Mount Olive Baptist Church Church of the Ascension Christopher Farms Elementary School Unity Church of Tidewater Shelton Park Elementary St. Matthews Catholic Church Red Mill Elementary School Contemporary Art Center of Virginia Community United Methodist Church Strawbridge Elementary School Tallwood Elementary School Thalia Elementary School Independence Middle School White Oaks Elementary School Virginia Beach Christian Church Three Oaks Elementary School Thalia Lynn Baptist Church St. Francis Episcopal Church Bayside Presbyterian Church Virginia Beach Christian Life Center AgricultureNoter Registrar Building 118 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 119 day of ,2008. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~~Cj~~ Voter Registrar U CA 10602 R-2 December 28,2007 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Cro~icf 3 I I &~~~ fiE. .... _..,,~ r. ...,....~~\;) 6"~~" ~j/ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to authorize Temporary Encroachments into City property known as Island Lake located at the rear of 2400 Windward Shore Drive by Dana R. Jackson. MEETING DATE: January 8, 2008 . Background: Mr. Dana R. Jackson desires to construct and maintain one hundred nineteen (119) linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, 5' return, 5' x 16' access pier leading to a 4' x 32' finger pier and a 12' x 12' 10,000 pound boatlift supported by four (4) 8" x 30' wood piles upon the City's property known as Island Lake located at 2400 Windward Shore Drive, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. . Considerations: Staff has reviewed this request and has no objections to this encroachment from an operational and maintenance standpoint. There are similar type encroachments in the adjacent vicinity that have been approved by the City. In accordance with the recommendations of City Council to help address water quality protection in conjunction with Temporary Encroachments onto City property, the requested encroachments have been reviewed by the Department of Planning/Environmental Management Center. Staff is of the professional opinion that the establishment of a 15 foot wide vegetated riparian buffer area consisting of under story trees and shrubs in a mulched bed running the entirety of the shoreline adjoining the applicant's property is feasible and warranted to help reduce long term water quality impacts associated with the existing and proposed encroachments. The applicant has submitted a plan for establishing a 15 foot wide vegetated riparian buffer that has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Planning/Environmental Management Center. . Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. . Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as requested, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. . Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of this encroachment subject to the applicant complying with conditions set forth in the agreement. Authorize City Manager to sign agreement. . Attachments: Ordinance, Location map, Agreement, Plat, Pictures Recommended Action: Approve Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works ~~ ~ AD City Manager: ~':) k. ~0141. 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS 5 INTO CITY PROPERTY KNOWN AS 6 ISLAND LAKE LOCATED AT THE 7 REAR OF 2400 WINDWARD SHORE 8 DRIVE BY DANA R. JACKSON 9 10 WHEREAS, Dana R. Jackson desires to construct and maintain one hundred 11 nineteen (119) linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, a 5' return, a 5' x 16' access pier leading to 12 a 4' x 32' finger pier and a 12' x 12' 10,000 pound boatlift supported by four (4) 8" x 30' 13 wood piles upon the City's property known as Island Lake located at the rear of 2400 14 Windward Shore Drive, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 15 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to SS 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, 16 Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the 1 7 City's property subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 18 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 19 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 20 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in SS 15.2- 21 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Dana R. Jackson, his heirs, 22 assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary 23 encroachment for one hundred nineteen (119) linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, a 5' return, a 24 5' x 16' access pier leading to a 4' x 32' finger pier and a 12' x 12' 10,000 pound boatlift 25 supported by four (4) 8" x 30' wood piles in the City's property known as Island Lake as 26 shown on the map marked Exhibit "A" and entitled: "Encroachment, Scale: 1" = 40' For 27 Dana Jackson 2400 Windward Shore Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23451 GPIN 1499-98- 28 6630," a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which 29 reference is made for a more particular description; and 30 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly 31 subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the 32 City of Virginia Beach and Dana R. Jackson (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto 33 and incorporated by reference; and 34 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee 35 is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 36 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such 37 time as Dana R. Jackson and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the 38 Agreement. 39 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 40 day of , 2008. CA-10544 V:lapplicationslcilylawprodlcycom32lWpdocslOO 12IP003100045430.00C X:IOIDlREAL ESTATElEncroachmentslPW OrdinanceslCA10544 Jackson.doc R-1 PREPARED: 10/22/07 f~ C. ~.sc", BLlC WORKS, REAL ESTATE APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (BOX 31) EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4) THIS AGREEMENT, made this ft day of f),/(/Iel' , 2002-, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, "City", and DANA R. JACKSON, HIS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WIT N E SSE T H: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "Lot 43, Section One, Bay Island" as shown on that certain plat entitled: "SUBDIVISION OF BAY ISLAND SECTION ONE PRINCESS ANNE CO., VA LYNNHAVEN MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT SCALE: 1"=100', FEBRUARY, 1958" and said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 45, at page 37, and being further designated, known, and described as 2400 Windward Shore Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain one hundred nineteen (119) linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, 5' return, 5' x 16' access pier leading to a 4' x 32' finger pier and a 12' x 12' 10,000 pound boatlift supported by four (4) 8" x 30' wood piles, collectively the ''Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; GPIN 1499-98-6630 WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City property known as Island Lake the "Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit the Temporary Encroachment within the Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City hereby grants to the Grantee permission 10 use the Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into the Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT SCALE: 1" = 40' FOR DANA JACKSON 2400 WINDWARD SHORE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451 GPIN 1499- 98-6630," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. Providing however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately removing, or ordering the Grantee to remove, all or any part of the Temporary Encroachment from the Encroachment Area in the event of an emergency or public necessity, and Grantee shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and 2 that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from the Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the construction, location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited eXtent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Gra ntee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Department of Planning prior to commencing any construction within the Encroachment Area (the "Permit"). It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall establish and maintain a riparian buffer, which shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width landward from the shoreline, shall run the enti,re length of the shoreline, and shall consist of a mulched planting bed and contain a mixture of shrubs and perennial plants (the "Buffer"). The Buffer shall not be established during the months of June, July, or August, so that it has the greatest likelihood of survivability. Prior to the City issuing a 3 Permit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security, in an amount equal to the estimated cost of the required Buffer plantings, to the Department of Planning to insure completion of the required Buffer. The Grantee shall notify the Department of Planning when the Buffer is complete and ready for inspection; upon satisfactory completion of the Buffer as determined by the City, the bond shall be released. An access path, stabilized appropriately to prevent erosion, through the Buffer to the shoreline is allowed. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as appl icable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the construction, location, and/or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setbacks requirements, as established by the City. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the 4 , I Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of the Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Dana R. Jackson, the said Grantee, has caused this Agreement to be executed by his signature. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , ,2008, by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED (SEAL) Notary Public Notary Registration Number: My Commission Expires: 5 (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of I 2008, by RUTH HODGES FRASER, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. (SEAL) Notary Public Notary Registration Number: My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUUTV -OF ~OIl.,TsroOLt-l: t-. I to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ ~ day of ()C.. To (!). E, l1... ,2007, by Dana R. Jackson. Notary Registration Number: 316149 My Commission Expires: ~o r-JOV ;),,0 I 0 -{~ j,~ Notary Public (SEAL) VANe_Flue, Notory PutItc Commonweann Of VIrttnta 316149 M Commlllton Ix Now _ -.2010 6 I I APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL S~(FICIEN~\. AN. D. FORM (] 1Jl ~JLlO '-- ~~ C. qwSilI 51 . NATURE PbJ REJ7J csf&tc DEPARTMENT X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Jackson, Dana - Windwood Shore Dr . LH\Agreement Encroachmenldoc 7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH OWNS ISLAND LAKE CANAL PARCEL ~ EBB ' FLOOD -- 66' MLWTO MLW ., 86' TO FAR SH. . , '~HW Ml~ ' '\ ~ EXHIBIT A g,f- . ISLAND LAKE EXISTING PIEr. TO BE DEMO. AND DISPOSED OF ,," ~ PROPOSED 12'x12'10,oooLB BOATLIFT . SUPPORTED BY 4 -8"x 30' WD PILES 2.5. CCA DRIVEN TO 50"-'> PENETRA110N PROPOSED 119' UNEAR FEET OFVJNYL SHEET PILE BULKHEAD . MHW AND MLW AT BULKHEAD .~. J ~~ ;, ~~ ~_.: ;~ APO- '.1' BAY.. . _ GPIN# 149B.:"':''9'8,~5533 CERTIFIED & SEALED BY: PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS RICHARD BARTLETT, P.E. 5316 BROCKIE STREET VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23464 "These plans are for pennit.purposes only. No geotechnical or structural borings have tal-.eo place at this $ite. Conlnlllttll"and!or owner shall verify bottom conditions, It shall be the owner's and/or. contractor's l'e$ponsibiUly to ~ and mark any undemround utilities or sprikler systems.. PURPOSE: PREVENTEROSI~ ENCROCHMENT IN: 8ROADBAY SCALE: 1" = 40' FOR DATUM: M.LW. ~.OO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1.) BAY 1 ~ ~ ~ -_ 98 - 5 5 3 3 2} VANDERPOLl t 499-98-.7770 FLINT CONSTRUCTION COMPAN DANA JACKSON 2400 WINDWARD SHORE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451 GPIN 1499-9&6630 DAlE: 8-22.-07 SHEET NO. 10F 1 3712 ADA ~S STREET PO TSMOUTH} VIRGINIA 23703 TEL 757-468.2277 AT:' BAY ISLAND CITY : VIRGINIA BEACH STATE: VIRGINIA <D > .C o C <D o ~ CJ) 0 ..x:::..c:: oCfJ CO-c J ~ CO ~ C ;;> CO-c o .~ S ..0 ~o <D..;:t ~N o >- .. 1::~ <D <D o..~ 0"0 ~-c 0..<( +-' ..c:: C> >-'C <D ~ 0.. ..oOOC/) o +-' ~ +-' <D <D 0 C/)..c::..c::..c:: . - +-' +-' C/) +-' C -. ._ C +-' \U ..c:: . - ..c:: :5~<DC> Q; ~ :J'C .- C/) 0 E 0.."E .- 0 C> /1\ 0.. +-' c\U +-' ._ E .0 (j)..c::<DCO ._ (.) ..x::: X COCO+-, <D 0 -I C/) C> ~ -c CO C(.)C<D..... .:> ~ CO C> C/) ;;>\U-CCO o ~ .!!!. .- <D ..c:: CO 0 C/) == CJ) CO C> >- E CO ~ .~ 1:: .- C -' 0 <DC/)~~~ 0.. -g 0 0.. ~ e CO ~ e.~ a. "0 >- 0.. 0.. o <D1::0C> <D > <D <D'~ 15' 0 0........ (j) ::3 E 0 ..0 .- CfJ <D o..~ ::3 X ~ CJ) <D a> (J) au.. a '<:t ..... o Q) o ~ C/J 1:: <II ~ Q) -g S ~ <II :;]! <II "0 t: Q) 0) :$ rJl ~ u: ~ ~ t> Q) "e 9:0 X ~ tC. ~ o ~ a a N W I- ~ U)ZO:: W C :::)OWO ' aU) M I 0.. ~ 0:: (Q I<CWOO<9 :;EO::<C::I:QO I-..,U)~ lZZ .ccn OWO::o::cn i=;:;E<c~:!, C:C:J:zs:z OO<Cc_ O<CCz9n I ...J 0 0:: _ '-' I 0::0;: OLLo Z 0 W ~ N I"- o j:::: .- 25 .- :::l <II ~ :::l co l/) ~ .~ Q) C/J t: o 0. 0. :::l C/J ciJ t: ~ Cl t: UJ ~ >- .0 ~ <II 0. ~ c.. ~lA'~ ;;Y;I~'t ~: - -. \'i (v ..w>' c\~ . j:' ,\" .. t:" ~.","""""~.ij ~%~...._~ "rfMllll>t''' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to authorize a Temporary Encroachment into a portion of the City Property known as Lake Rudee for James B. Ewing, Jr., and Terri L. Ewing, and Glen A. Williams and M. Nicole Williams. MEETING DATE: January 8, 2008 . Background: James B. Ewing, Jr. and Terri L. Ewing (the "Ewings") have requested permission to construct and maintain a portion of an open pile pier within a portion of the City's property known as Lake Rudee, located at the rear of 726 Kennedy Avenue, Virginia Beach, Virginia (GPIN 2427-01-3257) (the "Property"). The Ewings reside next door to the Property at 732 Kennedy Avenue (GPIN 2427-01-3206), but have a recorded easement on and over a portion of the Property. The easement is for the purposes of constructing, maintaining, and use of docking facilities on and from the Property. Glen A. Williams and M. Nicole Williams (the "Williams") are the owners of the Property. The Williams join in this encroachment request for the purpose of acknowledging the subject encroachment. . Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the Agreement. In accordance with the recommendations of City Council to help address water quality protection in conjunction with Temporary Encroachments onto City Property, the requested encroachment has been reviewed by the Department of Planning/Environmental Management Center. Staff is of the professional opinion that the establishment of a five (5) foot wide riparian buffer on the Ewing property consisting of a mulched planting bed and containing a mixture of shrubs and perennial plants will suffice to help reduce long term water quality impacts associated with the proposed encroachment. In addition, the Ewing's will make a THREE HUNDRED DOLLAR ($300.00) payment to the City as compensation for the riparian buffer area that cannot be established on the two (2) properties involved in this encroachment (the Ewing and Williams properties). Such payment is equal to the cost of plant material that would have been required on the two (2) properties in order to establish the standard fifteen (15) feet of riparian buffer restoration required as a condition for shoreline encroachments. There are similar encroachments in Lake Rudee. . Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda . Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. . Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. . Attachments: Ordinance, Agreement, Plat, Pictures and Location Map Recommended Action: Approval of the Ordinance. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate ~a\. ~ A:P City Manager~ lL..~ clI""z. , I 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO 5 A PORTION OF THE CITY PROPERTY 6 KNOWN AS LAKE RUDEE FOR 7 JAMES B. EWING, JR. AND TERRI L. 8 EWING AND GLEN A. WILLIAMS AND 9 M. NICOLE WILLIAMS 10 11 WHEREAS, JAMES B. EWING, JR. a nd TERRI L. EWING (the "EWINGS") 12 desire to construct and maintain a portion of an open pile pier within a portion the City's 13 property known as Lake Rudee, located at the rear of 726 Kennedy Avenue, in the City 14 of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 15 WHEREAS, the property owned by the EWINGS, located at 732 Kennedy 16 Avenue, is benefited by an easement on and over a portion of the property located at 1 7 726 Kennedy Avenue, which said easement is for the purposes of constructing, 18 maintaining, and using docking facilities on and from a portion of the 726 Kennedy 19 Avenue property. 20 WHEREAS, GLEN A. WILLIAMS and M. NICOLE WILLIAMS (the "WILLIAMS"), 21 as owner of the 726 Kennedy Avenue property, acknowledge the said construction and 22 maintenance of such an open pile pier. 23 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to SS 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, 24 Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the 25 City's property subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 26 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 27 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 28 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in SS 15.2- 29 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, JAMES B. EWING, JR. and 30 TERRI L. EWING , their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to 31 construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a portion of an open pile pier 32 within a portion of the City's property known as Lake Rudee as shown on the map 33 marked Exhibit "A" and entitled: "PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT FOR GLEN A. AND 34 M. NICOLE WILLIAMS LOT B-1. AMENDED RESUB. OF LOTS A & B, BLOCK 40, 35 SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS (M.B. 302, PG.99) FOR BENEFIT OF: JAMES B. AND 36 TERRI L. EWING LOT C. RESUBD. OF LOTS 16-19, BLK. 40, SHADOW LAWN 37 HEIGHTS (M.B. 286, PG. 44) BEACH DISTRICT AUGUST 7,2007," a copy of which is 38 on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more 39 particular description; and 40 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly 41 subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the 42 City of Virginia Beach and JAMES B. EWING, JR. and TERRI L. EWING, and GLEN A. 43 WILLIAMS and M. NICOLE WILLIAMS (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and 44 incorporated by reference; and 45 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee 46 is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 47 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such 48 time as JAMES B. EWING, JR. and TERRI L. EWING, and GLEN A. WILLIAMS and M. 49 NICOLE WILLIAMS and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the 50 Agreement. 51 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day 52 of ,2008. CA-10537 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\001 0\P002\00045277 .DOC X:\OID\REAL EST ATElEncroachments\PW Ordinances\CA 10537 Williams-Ewing.doc R-1 PREPARED: 11/28/07 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM (S C. ~S(;V\ IC WORKS, REAL ESTATE (, ~") -R ~ n { 1 ~,--~Jtr~01 CIT 'ATTORNEY PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (BOX 31) EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4) THIS AGREEMENT, made this 2ih day of November, 2007, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, "City", Grantor for indexing purposes, and GLEN A. WILLIAMS and M. NICOLE WILLIAMS, husband and wife, collectively "WILLIAMS", Grantor and Grantee for indexing purposes, and JAMES B. EWING, JR. and TERRI L. EWING, husband and wife, collectively "EWING", Grantor and Grantee for indexing purposes, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE. WIT N E SSE T H: That, WHEREAS, WILLIAMS is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "LOT B-1" (the "Williams Property") as shown on that certain plat entitled: "AMENDED RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOTS A & B - BLOCK. 40 MAP OF SHADOWLAWN HEIGHTS" and said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "Clerk's Office") in Map Book 302, at Page 99, and EWING is the owner of that certain lot, tract or parcel of land designated and described as "LOT C" (the "Ewing Property") as shown on that certain plat entitled: "RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOTS 16-19, BLOCK. 40 MAP OF SHADOWLAWN HEIGHTS" and said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office in Map Book 286, at Page 44. Said properties being further designated, known, and described as 726 Kennedy Avenue, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 (GPIN 2427-01-3257) and 732 Kennedy Avenue, Virginia Beach, GPIN'S: 2427-01-3257-0000,2427-01-3206-0000,2427-01-8282-0000 1 Virginia 23451 (GPIN 2427-01-3206), respectively. The Ewing Property (Lot C) is benefited by an easement located on the Williams Property (Lot B-1), which said easement is for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and using docking facilities, as evidenced by that certain Declaration of Easement recorded in Deed Book 4244 Page 1967 in the Clerk's Office, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Declaration of Easement recorded as Instrument # 20070910001234420 in the Clerk's Office. WHEREAS, it is proposed by EW ING to construct and maintain a portion of an open pile pier, the "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that EWING encroach into a portion of an existing City property known as Lake Rudee, the "Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, EWING has requested that the City permit the Temporary Encroachment within the Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to EWING and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City hereby grants to EWING permission to use the Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: 2 I I A Temporary Encroachment into the Encroachment Area as shown on those certain plats entitled: "PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT FOR GLEN A. AND M. . NICOLE WILLIAMS LOT B-1. AMENDED RESUB. OF LOTS A & B, BLOCK 40, SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS (M.B. 302, PG. 99) FOR BENEFIT OF: JAMES B. AND TERRI L. EWING LOT C. RESUB. OF LOTS 16-19, BLK 40, SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS (M.B.286, PG. 44) BEACH DISTRICT AUGUST 7, 2007," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. Providing however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately removing, or ordering EWING to remove, all or any part of the Temporary Encroachment from the Encroachment Area in the event of an emergency or public necessity, and EWING shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to EWING, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from the Encroachment Area by EWING; and that EWING will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that EWING shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the construction, location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and 3 to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than EWING. It is further expressly understood and agreed that EWING agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that EWING must obtain a permit from the Department of Planning prior to commencing any construction with the Encroachment Area (the "Permit"). It is further expressly understood and agreed that EWING shall establish and maintain a riparian buffer on the Ewing Property, which shall be a minimum of five (5) feet in width landward from the shoreline, as shown on the aforesaid attached Exhibit, and shall consist of a mulched planting bed and contain a mixture of shrubs and perennial plants (the "Buffer"). The Buffer shall not be established during the months of June, July, or August, so that it has the greatest likelihood of survivability. Prior to the City issuing a Permit, EWING must post a bond or other security, in an amount equal to the estimated cost of the required Buffer plantings, to the Department of Planning to insure completion of the required Buffer. EWING shall notify the Department of Planning when the Buffer is complete and ready for inspection; upon satisfactory completion of the Buffer as determined solely by the City, the bond shall be released. An access path, stabilized appropriately to prevent erosion, through the Buffer to the shoreline is allowed. EWING shall, in addition, make a THREE HUNDRED DOLLAR ($300.00) payment, payable to the City Treasurer, to the Department of Planning as compensation for the riparian buffer area that cannot be established on the two (2) properties involved in this Encroachment (the Ewing Property and the Williams 4 property). Said payment is equal to the cost of plant material that would have been required on the two (2) properties in order to establish the fifteen (15) feet of riparian buffer restoration required for shoreline encroachments as a standard condition of the City. It is further expressly understood and agreed that EWING must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. EWING also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in a n amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance pol icy or policies. EWING will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. EWING assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the construction, location, and/or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setbacks requirements, as established by the City. It is further expressly understood and agreed that EWING must submit for review and approval, a survey of the Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed bya registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. 5 It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to EWING, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require EWING to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge EWING for the use of the Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by EWING; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. WILLIAMS joins in this Agreement solely for the purpose of acknowledging the terms of this Agreement as between the City and EWING and agreeing that the City shall be entitled to any and all access upon the Williams Property as reasonably necessary and provided for herein for enforcement of the rights of the City as and between the City and Ewing, without any liability of WILLIAMS for any of the obligations and/or responsibilities set forth in this Agreement, and without any benefit of this Agreement running to WILLIAMS except as expressly provided herein for the following indemnification obligation of EWING. EWING agrees to indemnify and hold harmless WILLIAMS and the City from any and all loss, damage, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees incurred, incurred by WILLIAMS and/or by the City as a result of the failure of EWING to 6 I I perform the obligations and agreements of EW ING contained in this Agreement and/or as a result of enforcement by the City of any of the terms of this Agreement. The obligations of EWING under this Agreement shall be deemed obligations and covenants running with title to the Ewing Property and shall bind any such successor and assign owners of. the Ewing Property, inuring to the benefit of the City, and the indemnification of EWING to WI LLlAMS and the City shall be deemed obligations and covenants running with title to the Ewing Property and shall bind any such successor and assign owners of the Ewing Property inuring to the benefit of WILLIAMS and any such successor and assign owners of the Williams Property, and to the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, JAMES B. EWING, JR. and TERRI L. EWING, and GLEN A. WILLIAMS and M. NICOLE WILLIAMS have caused this Agreement to be executed by their signatures. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. (The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.) 7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By (SEAL) City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008, by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, On its behalf. He/She is personally known to me. (SEAL) Notary Public Notary Registration Number: My Commission Expires: (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2008, by , CITY CLERK/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, on its behalf. She is personally known to me. (SEAL) Notary Public Notary Registration Number: My Commission Expires: 8 (' -' /:,/.~fL""""'''') ~~iA. WItlIAMS Jk /WloLt w1~ M. NICOLE WILLIAMS STATE OF VIRGINIA . CITY/GOUNTY OF \J \(f9(l\Ct ~~ , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this z., l~ day of ~o\J~b ,2007, by GLEN A. WILLIAMS. STATE OF VIRGINIA , CITY/COUNl:Y OF \J\(~tCL ~d.-, to-wit: ,~ ~ (SEAL) Notary Public \\\\llll/llff ,,\\ r MU 1/111 ," r:-\ .:..... 1\;.('0. // , V ,"y P ".'r; " ~'/:s-.",<,,?-~ uS'..p...<\. ~ '0 '0 ~~ ,\" - ::: ,:? () ". ::. :: : 'REGISTRATION ': :: =: tiIJM3ER : ~ = ~~"'" 7057767/~~ -;;f. .(:)... ~/ ~~"'" ..,~~,~ "" 0111.........'..1( ,"- /1111 'YEALT\-\ Q \\\"" Iflllill\\I\\ My Commission Expires: N~ by ;0, UJ Ii) Notary Registration Number: 7057767 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Z'"7!i day of ~lM-hvr ,2007, by M. NICOLE WILLIAMS. \ \ \ \ I \ I I J 11 (fS~AL ) ,,' '{ . U1, //1 " r. ........... /v~. "/ " ,>-v. 0'( p' " ~ A:'."-i.,?-t- U~"'O-;' ::: 0:'0 ~"""'.~ ::. _.~ 0'- := i REGiSTRATiON ': :: -' N""D"'R : - ~ (1 : Vi/ll,ji:. \ : = - Q" 7/'\1::7767 ::$- ~~"'" uo .....$g " ~o '. ...rL" ... " .'. ".\~' //<:I'EALTH'O'( ~""", fllllllllll\\\ My Commission Expires:~wJuA ~ ,w'o Notary Registration Number: 7057767 9 r _ 7{" ". , r . ./}. j~...-~ ,:'1' STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF V {r 9 i()ic:t ~o [il) to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~Oih day of NC\Jenl be ( ,2007, by JAMES B. EWING, JR. 9vLJl~ Notary Public H cftUv~",,~ "\, J ( ,,'" \'.':."'" ....0 ....' ,'" .. .......... L " . ....,..". st'~..."7-t) ~. .... .~ ~~"" . ; .:', _..~ I . -, . . :-, e: .. . ...' . c;. : ~ "Jo... - ; ~.., w~. -:,. ...., .... 'J.\. ,., . f ,. ;..~~.r..lO'~....:..~ .~ -.. ..... .., ,,~ "'~ snti t1t'~ ......".....,,",' My Commission Expires: (\/\UfC.{;\ 3i) 2-0;0 Notary Registration Number: 7060535 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COU~JTY OF \j[ ("~ i ili Ct BraGh, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~0i11 day of s ir...~ tJovem.x ~ ,2007, by TERRI L. EWING. ~ C.~~ 5 GNATURE flt) RCAl CJ& DEPARTMENT X:\Projects\Encroachments\Applicants\Williams, Glen & Nicole - CC\Agreement Encroachment.doc ~'9 /"'z 'J 'Cd'n/'~ ,~ (,(>/,\,I .1j....t r . ,'\ :.;. ~a, ,~.;.. ".j ..-;.......:. -<)...~ ...'. ....<....liCI..~~... "\ .... ....,. '" \V --.' " .~. ~= ;'"... ~... :.t:. ~ ,;:..... , ,: 0 ~~)\'~~ .~ ~js, t ~: ..... ( o. //'lJ "~ .., . . .."..... -., APPROVED AS TO LEGAL '",:f i.:, J0'~ ""....... IS f, FFICII;~CY AND FORM "I,,,..,,,,,, l t; '" '__~ . (__\ t' I \ i '\ tl ~ ..\ iJ"." \,i "\i \.' \L~" ,'-, Il'. i.i . :.I . ,. -,.~- <._.,,/' \." \ My Commission Expires: Jv'\ClVCJI -31)}. Oi () Notary Registration Number: 7060535 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS 10 PLAN VIEW SCALE 1" = 30' f MHW 3.0 HALFWAY UP \ EXISTING RIPRAP. ~ 9 10 12 PROPOSED KAYAK LAUNCH . 13 5' BUFFER RESTORA nON 3-S-F # 726 -" t.J CJi t.J oi ~ 3-S-FRM 1fl32 [ I I I I 1-------- I I I I 14 :::E -" -" -" 15 LOT B-1 Vl1 _ 2427-01-.3257 IPF N 7606'37" E 50.00' ~ C IPF 2427-01-3206 GPIN: 2427-01-3257 KENNEDY A VENUE (50') EXHIBIT 'A' PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT FOR GLEN A. and M. NICOLE WlWAMS LOT B-1. AMENDED RESUB. OF LOTS A & B, BLOCK 40 SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS (M.B. 302, PG. 99) FOR BENEFIT OF: JAMES B. and TERRI LEWING LOT C, RESUB. OF LOTS 16-19, BLK. 40, SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS BEACH DfSTRCT (M,B. 286, PG. 44) AUGUST 7, 2007 WA TERFRONT CONSULTING, INC 1112 JENSEN DRIVE, STE. 206 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451 PHONE: (757) 425-8244 FAX: (757) 216-6687 G1 o L~'- \ -6S?~~~ ..--------- ..,..-------- \ \ \ \ " " \ 't I, \ ~\ ~\ 0\ 'W> \, ....... 'I pI" ~\ \ \ " I, '. I ." " \ \ ' ,\ ~ I " ~-------- : '------- ------.. _------' ___------------ 1 r--~ \ \ \ \ \. , \. '( , , '. I \, \ '\ \, .., \ \ I i, \, \, '\. " \, \ I, \, \ ' 'l~\ 14 ll, ~\" i\ ~\" 'I, \ \ \) - I'-- LO N (W') , N~ COG> NI'-- C9N- ~ ~ U) ,^ ONOW ~Z~:!: Ni5:,g;(,!) ~~q::lZ t;ZW~;:;;: Wo..:J~ W :J(,!)Z~~...i a.OW_W_O;::::l <(W ~o..ULL w::::: 0:: W (,!) - 0:: ':::::I-O::>-_ZW ZZ:JOW .1- b o:::W:J:!:O~ o ~WZZOOZ-lI 1-:J:~mW:!:<( :;.... <( u <( ~ ~ <( (,!) ill o <( ...J - Z ..J o 00 re~ ::I::;: ~ ..J 0:: !z I'-- W ::> W ({) U_oZ:> iDo:::l-Z<iai W!z~ZCJ) 0.. wW W~~...J:!: :::!<(......(,!)~ 0..-,00::: ZOZO W<(<(U- 0..0 O~ <( U o ...J ';1 EO : >- "0 (l) c Iii ~ ~ >- "0 (l) C C (l) ~ a Cl:l ~ CIS "0 C (l) ~ (l) ~ v ~ g 'e- g,. x , \ , \., . \ \. 'I \ \ l~ 'j ~. ~, r-.. ~ ~ o ..- ;j Cl:l ~ ;j lD lB (.) .2; (l) (f) 1:= ~ ;j (f) ci c ld,! ~ c ~ a.. >- .Q -g ... G5 a.. 2:! a.. '. \ " \ \ \ '1 i'l " ), \, \ I" t .~ \, \, " \. ' '<, \ 1, I, \. \\ 1'" \ ~ \I ~\ ~L ~\ 0\ ?\ I I ~ {(:F if! ~~J " "' .,.....,.yIJ..... CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to authorize Temporary Encroachments into a portion of City Rights of Way known as 11th Street, Atlantic Avenue, and Ocean Avenue, for the adjacent property owners, 11th Street, L.C. (alkla 11th Street, L.L.C.) a Virginia limited liability company. MEETING DATE: January 8, 2008 . Background: 11th Street L.C. has requested permission to construct and maintain landscaping, concrete pavers, cobblestone, and drip irrigation system including a 4" PVC irrigation sleeve and a 2" PVC irrigation electric wiring sleeve, upon the City's rights of way known as 11th Street, Atlantic Avenue, and Ocean Avenue. There is no approved encroachment agreement by the City of Virginia Beach for the existing concrete pavers; therefore, it has been included in this request. . Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the requested encroachments and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the Agreement. There are similar encroachments on Atlantic Avenue that have been approved by the City of Virginia Beach, which is where 11th Street L.C. has requested to encroach. . Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda . Alternatives: Approve the encroachments as presented, deny the encroachments, or add conditions as desired by Council. . Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. . Attachments: Ordinance, Agreement, Plat, Location Map and Pictures. Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate!lOb ~ hD k- .~ ffl. . I I 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS 5 INTO A PORTION OF THE CITY 6 RIGHTS OF WAY KNOWN AS 11TH 7 STREET, ATLANTIC AVENUE, AND 8 OCEAN AVENUE FOR THE 9 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS 10 11TH STREET, L.C. (A1K/A 11TH 11 STREET L.L.C.), A VIRGINIA LIMITED 12 LIABILITY COMPANY 13 14 WHEREAS, 11TH Street L.C. (a/kla 11th Street, L.L.C.), a Virginia limited liability 15 company, desires to construct and maintain landscapi-ng, concrete pavers, cobblestone, 16 and drip irrigation system, including a 4" PVC irrigation sleeve and a 2" PVC irrigation 17 electric wiring sleeve, within the City's rights of way located at 11th Street, Atlantic 18 Avenue, and Ocean Avenue, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 19 20 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to ~~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, 21 Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the 22 City's rights of way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 23 24 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 25 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 26 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in ~~ 15.2- 27 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, 11TH Street L.C. (a1k1a 11th 28 Street, L.L.C.), a Virginia limited liability company, its assigns and successors in title are 29 authorized to construct and maintain temporary encroachments for landscaping, 30 concrete pavers, cobblestone, and drip irrigation system, including a 4" PVC irrigation 31 sleeve and a 2" PVC irrigation electric wiring sleeve, in a portion of the City's rights of 32 way as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A" and entitled: "EXHIBIT "A" LANDSCAPE 33 ENCROACHMENT FOR 11TH STREET L.C.," a copy of which is on file in the 34 Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular 35 description; and 36 37 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly 38 subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the 39 City of Virginia Beach and 11TH Street L.C. (a/kla 11th Street, L.L.C.), a Virginia limited 40 liability company (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by 41 reference; and 42 43 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee 44 is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and '45 ''lb 46 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such 47 time as 11TH Street L.C. (a/k1a 11th Street, L.L.C.), a Virginia limited liability company, 48 and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. 49 50 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 51 day of , 2008. CA-10317 X:IOIDIREAL ESTATEIEncroachmentslPW OrdinanceslCA10317 11th Street, L.C. Ordinance. doc V:\applicationslcilylawprodlcycom321WpdocsID026IP002100037793. DOC R-1 PREPARED: 10/24/07 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS ~f~ C.~~ b BLlC WORKS, REAL EST~E J\,X) PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATIORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C) (4) THIS AGREEMENT, made this JC9'thdayof O~tober ,2007, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, "City", and 11th STREET. L.C. (AlKJA 11th STREET, L.L.C.), a Virginia limited liability company, AND 'TS ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "GranteeD, even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as Lots US", "9" and "10" in Square "11" as shown on that certain plat entitled: "VIRGINIA BEACH OWNED BY NORFOLK AND VIRGINIA BEACH RAILROAD AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY" and said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 1, at page 23A, and being further designated, known, and described as 1017 Atlantic Avenue, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451; WHEREAS. it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain landscaping. concrete pavers, cobblestone, and drip irrigation system, including a 4" PVC irrigation sleeve and a 2" PVC irrigation electric wiring sleeve, collectively, the "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, It is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of existing City GPIN 2427-24-5988 . , . rights of way known as 11th Street, Atlantic Avenue, and Ocean Avenue. the "Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit the Temporary Encroachment within the Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), In hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City hereby grants to the Grantee permission to use the Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into the Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "EXHIBIT "A. LANDSCAPE ENCROACHMENT FOR 11TH STREET L.C.," a copy of which js attached hereto and to which reference Is made for a more particular description. Providing however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately removing, or ordering the Grantee to remove, all or any part of the Temporary Encroachment from the Encroachment Area in the event of an emergency or public necessity, and Grantee shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from the Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear 2 \. ~ all costs and expenses of such removal; and that the Grantor shall promptly issue all permits necessary for such removal to ensure that Grantee may complete the removal within the time period set forth herein if any. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the construction, location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein. nor to pennit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit and have approved a traffic control plan before commencing work in the Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees that no open cut of the public roadway will be allowed except under extreme circumstances. Requests for exceptions must be submitted to the Highway Operations Division. Department of Public Works, for final approval. 3 ~ )' . It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within the Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to Issuance of a right of way/utility easement permit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security, in the amount of two times their engineer's cost estimate, to the Department of Planning to guard against damage to City property or facilities during construction. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee. as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance In an amount not less than $500.000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes aU responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the construction, location. and/or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. Landscaping materials must be approved by the Landscaping Services Division of Parks and Recreation. It Is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit for review and approval, a survey of the Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor. and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required 4 . :. . , by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the Oty may charge the Grantee for the use of the Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said 11th Street, L.C. (aIkla 11th Street, L.L.C.), a Virginia limited liability company, has caused this agreement to be executed on its behalf by, Yaron Sibony, President of Sunsations Realty, L.L.C., a Maryland limited liability company, Manager of 11th Street, L.C. (a1k1a 11th Street, L.L.C.), a Virginia limited liability company, with due authority to bind said limited liability company. Further, that the City of Virginia has caused this agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. 5 >.." CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. to-wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED Notary Public My Commission Expires: (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007. by RUTH HODGES FRASER, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 6 I I 11th STREET, L.C. (a/kla 11TH Street, L. L.C.), a Virginia limited liability company By: SUNSATIONS REALTY, L.L.C., a Maryland limited liability company, Manager STATE OF V.rWt/! 11 CITY/COUNTY OF 'JrtGJ iJi/} BUlbi, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 16 i t1 day of ~0 ot3tfL. ,2007, by Yaron Sabony. President of Sunsations Realty, LL.C., a Maryland limited liability company, Manager of 11th Street L.C. (a/kla 11th Street, L.LC.), a Virginia limited liability company. . " .;;\"~~'~;~?~~~~~,',...,;~<~ :>' ';.,',/v ~L~.l:f ~.~~ '~'. (~~~:'~~~~t~n "J'.f.y'... \VJ...... ..;:'-~ ~C.;'.i~~~6H;~~t .t'~~~"'t My Commission Expires: MyCommi'l'liOR.ires6~ - - ~, () r:rr 2)O!J . My KEG1STe.I4TIC"\) NUI'V\6Elt.: 3iofDq 8'3 ' . APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM ^\ -'\ r ~fQi~ ~~ a '- YJoml-s' C, ~fl\. 0C) SIGNATURE Pm RtAI EZl1tc DEPARTMENT. X:\Pro,iects\Encroachments\App6cants\ 11th Street-Hampton Inn Condos - KMJ\CA 10317Agreement Encroachment.doc 7 I en Ii il :~ !5 (( e I I~ 1- 'W , III Ie ,> en' 1 II I III I <{ 0::1 I II I e. I a..: Wi 1'1 I b I W >, II, I ~ , tu <{, I I" I fll ~ ~ I I' , 0:: W' leA' Zl c I () 1-' IWI 01 irl I Z WI 1:;a:1 j::1 iE. I 0 ~ 101 C:l:llol 01 11-1"'(91 CD ~Ii~~: ~ ~ I I 0::1 v: I I- s: I I 0..1 W IQI~: ~I~ I I I, I :: ~ I ~ 7::: I I I I 1 I I I I I I t I ' 1 ~ : : \ , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I , I I I !!I I II I I I II I I 1 II I I I I, 1 I I I" \ I 1 I I' I a.... , 1 I !5 1,1 I ~ I I I I I : I I I ~ I I,;:;;: I z I I.r=: 1 I N ;ClO I ~ .... ~ <Q :, \ ~ ? I II I LOOi: 0 8d 'S.l83.lIH:)~1;f SSV\I:) I' I .00 ~ 91. jf1li= e b I'- ('t) 0 }I ~ W N ....I <C () en ~ (J) z <( 0:: o ~ 0:: o I- en zO -I- ~I- o() W 'Z Oz ~o CoU :r ('t) LL o o W = I- ClOen ~w ~=> uO <(w - 000:: I-w wu enz .<( <!l- 00:: ....1<( 00> I- NVSZ W ~ I o <( . 00 O:::-i 01- Zw Ww wO::: 0.1- <(en OI 001- .0 T"""' 'Z T"""' :<( 0::: -.JO u.. W z :J z o i= ~ 0:: 9:; ~ .... ~ I- Ir ai ~I .,ui >< :W - - -1- - ~ l-NV' uj W .l33H.lS H.l~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <( <C W .. <!l a.: <!l W ::J - ,~ I . <(=> :I: 0 Z ~ z <C ~ \, I ,- H~- ~~~ ~ --8Ci:g_ - -~ --.-OO::@)--2- ~ -ml-? ~I W U I- ....I <( wow 0.. () W N UI U > > () ~ c:o >0:: Z ~ Z CD ~ en z 0 ~.... UI >Wo..wo:: 0 <C ....Io::!:!:!O::O. r,::;\ ~ I o..w -....1- en 1-1- <(wenW~b <C~ I u~ I ~ ~ N W S 0.. lli en => I- Z<c ~ ;i! .... ....I ~ en I II' <::: 0:: <c Z Z 0:: r,::;\....I 0 ~ II' 12 <co:: I- 0 Z - a..: => en ~ <( => I III 0 a:: (j) <{ <( $ (j) u.. ~ ul an I I I III 0 S!lJ0UJ:lUJS 'Vlld 6E:vn' LOOZlv ~/Z '6MP1USW4oeOJOU3 ade:lSpuelluawlpeO.J:)U3-000'SLogO\Slaa4S-l\S1aa4S\OOO.ELC90\sqO~gO"VII , ~61.. ,(",,~~7c~ ~'~,.:..~. . "'%' f;::f'<1. 'C.."~) ~ui . . - ~-l~~ \~/:p' Iii ~~:~:r ~-:~......... '" "-- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ~ ITEM: An Ordinance to Create CIP 3-138 and Appropriate $3,213,780 Originating from the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Program for Procuring Services and Equipment Necessary in the Implementation of the Hampton Roads Overlay Regionallnteroperability Network (ORION) MEETING DATE: January 8, 2008 . Background: In FY 2006-07, Hampton Roads was designated an Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) region. This allowed Hampton Roads to become eligible for Homeland Security funding. This $8,000,000 grant, coordinated through the state of Virginia and Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), allocates $3,213,780 for interoperable communication enhancements. The enhancements consist of the following components and services: . Four (4) additional Hampton Roads radio communication antennae sites . P25 ORION oriented 700/800MHz subscriber radios . Training and exercises The City of Virginia Beach was named the lead agency for this portion of the UASI grant award because the contracts utilized for interoperable communications enhancements of the ORION network are held by the City of Virginia Beach. . Considerations: To facilitate the implementation of the ORION interoperable communication enhancements, the Com IT/Emergency Communication and Citizen Services Division in conjunction with the ORION Steering Committee, the Hampton Roads Interoperable Communications Advisory Committee (HRICAC) and an existing professional engineering firm, will provide the required support, analysis and project management. The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) award of $3,213,780 requires no local match. . Public Information: Public Information would be handled through the normal Council Agenda public information process. On December 30, 2007, the Public Hearing advertisement reflected a grant amount of $3,513,780. The grant award has been reduced to $3,213,780. . Alternatives: An alternative would be to maintain the present communication system. By continuing with the status quo, optimal regional emergency interoperability would not be achieved; moreover future available funding is uncertain. . Recommendations: The recommendation is for City Council to authorize CIP 3-138 and appropriate $3,213,780. . Attachments: Ordinance and HRPDC Grant Award Letter Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Communications and Information TeChnology (COmIT~f ~ CityManage~l.~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE CIP 3-138 AND APPROPRIATE $3,213,780 ORIGINATING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S (DHS) URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE (UASI) PROGRAM FOR PROCURING SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS OVERLAY REGIONAL INTEROPERABILlTY NE1WORK (ORION) WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has allocated an Interoperable Communications Technology Grant to the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach in coordination with the state of Virginia and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) for support of regional efforts will provide equipment and training for the regional communication network. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That Capital Project # 3-138, UASI Interoperable Communications Technology Grant, is hereby established in the Capital Improvement Program for the purpose of funding regional communication equipment. 2. That $3,213,780 is hereby accepted from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and appropriated to Capital Project # 3-138, UASI Interoperable Communications Technology Grant, in the FY 2007-08 Capital Budget, with federal revenue increased accordingly. of Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2008. day APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~ ~~ City Attorney's o~ CA 1 0600 R-2 January 2, 2008 co co (J) LO ~ N ~ N ~ ...oo'V'J~\.." aV'J aOJ-'J' <::I X I- E tI) ~ W ~ :J co ~ a..OcjCO ~ ....... W · en w ....... " ...I Ln ::?! :a: I- I- ~ t;; ZZW~ ~ OWW", ~ -:a:"N ~ t; I-~ ~ ....... ::J: tI) N ~ OO.cZ ~ o c( ...... ^ ~ ...I 0 ~.... 0 '" ~ C) 0:: .... ~ o ~ Z oe- ? W x r..." - z+~ > ;"i1>- , ) \ \ \ \ \ \ t"" \ \ fJ) "\ 1, _ \, \ ..... \ \ t"" " \ c::::> \ :, ...... II \ I, . \ \. \ \, I:, ) \ \ \ 11 II '1 \ ". \ ~\ \\0 \, , 0 '\-.,. ( '......... N ) -----.:-- , , "l:: o a. 0- :::l CO 0. c !# O'l ID ~ ~ ~ 0... o o ..... o LJ:'l >- .0 <::I (l) ro a. ~ 0... ~o I I ~\ !l-r~~'.~.~ (u: -- \~, :\-:::- . E:' "'-\" ~s" ~:::~~..~ o,-ou,,~' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution to Express Support for a Regional Waste Management Study by Providing Partial Funding for the Study from CIP #8-933, Landfill #2 - Expansion MEETING DATE: January 8, 2008 . Background: Contracts between the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) and each of its member communities expire in January 2018. Decisions regarding the future of solid waste management for the region are needed now, and a thorough review of alternatives is warranted. . Considerations: The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, at the request of the area's city managers, has secured the services of SCS Engineers to develop a solid waste management system for Southside Hampton Roads. The total cost of the study is $240,000, and Virginia Beach's pro rata share is $96,108. Funding is available in CIP #8-933, Landfill #2 - Expansion. The Chief Administrative Officers were responding to a request from the Mayors and Chairs of Hampton Roads to conduct such an analysis of potential-ORtio~s for solid waste The study will include: · A review of the existing waste management system . An evaluation of future technology and facility needs for 2018 to 2050 . An evaluation of institutional models for waste management . Facilitation of discussion with Chief Administrative Officers . Preparation of a report and recommendations . Public Information: Information will be disseminated through the normal Council agenda notification process. . Alternatives: City Council may choose not to participate in the study. . Attachments: Resolution Scope of Services for Consultant Services (SCS Engineers) for Development of a Solid Waste Management System for Southside Hampton Roads Recommended Action: Adoption of resolution, thereby committing Virginia Beach to participate in the development of a solid waste management system for Southside Hampton Roads (post 2018) study, and contributing the pro rata share of $96,108 Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works City Manag . k. 06~ 1 A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR A 2 REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY BY PROVIDING 3 , PARTIAL FUNDING FOR THE STUDY FROM CIP #8-933, 4 LANDFILL #2 - EXPANSION 5 WHEREAS, contracts between SPSA and each member community will expire in 6 January 2018; and 7 8 WHEREAS, at the request of area's city managers, the Hampton Roads Planning 9 District Commission has secured engineering services to perform a regional solid waste 10 management study for South Hampton Roads, to include a review the existing system and 11 an evaluation of needs for the period from 2018 to 2050; and 12 13 WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach portion of the cost of the study is $96,108, with 14 funds available in CIP #8-933, Landfill #2 - Expansion, if the scope of the project is 15 modified to include the study. 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 17 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 1. That the scope of CIP #8-933, Landfill #2 - Expansion, is hereby modified to 19 include a regional waste management study; and 20 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to use $96,108 of funding in CIP #8- 21 933 for the Virginia Beach portion of the cost of the study. of Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the 2008. day Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: P~A.~ Public orks Department f r/ " '" / v!/I/wu /;/!Iv;t4/ City Attorney's Office CA 10604 R-1 January 2,2008 HRPDC Scope of Services SCS ENGINEERS SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS SCS will provide the following services to support the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission evaluate and recommend an approach to managing solid waste in the South Hampton Roads region after the inter-local agreements with the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) expires in 2018. The scope of services is prepared assuming no preconceived bias toward one institutional model, contracting approach, or technology. The following major tasks are anticipated. . Task I - Review Existing Southside Hampton Roads Regional Solid Waste Management Systems . Task 2 - Evaluate Future Solid Waste Technology and Facility Needs for 2018 to 2050 . Task 3 - Evaluate Institutional Models for Solid Waste Management . Task 4 - Facilitation with Chief Administrative Officers . Task 5 - Prepare Report and Recommendations . Task 6 - Project Management and Administration Specifics regarding the objectives, goals, approach, and methodologies to be employed for each task are provided below. 1.0 EVALUATE SOUTHSIDE HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The objectives of this task are as follows: . Identify County, City, and private solid waste management operations affecting the Region's solid waste management system. . Document the organizational structure of the regional solid waste management system. . Document current solid waste recycling practices. . Document current solid waste disposal practices, including public and private facilities. 2007-11-13 HRPDC Scope of Services SCS ENGINEERS . Document the financial structure of solid waste management in the region including current revenue sources, capital projects, debt obligations, operational and maintenance costs, and other long-term obligations (e.g., closure and post-closure care). SCS anticipates the following work efforts under this task: . Review the June 2006 Regional Solid Waste Management Plan to obtain key information relative to regional demographics, system organization, solid waste quantities, collection, transfer, processing, recycling, and disposal. . Meet with SPSA staff, member community staff, commercial, and franchise haulers to identify the key issues that may affect regional cooperation. . Obtain and review solid waste budget data, and any audited statements demonstrating the costs for managing solid waste in the region. This information will be used in the development of the pro forma financial models prepared for the alternatives analyses. 2.0 EVALUATE FUTURE SOLID WASTE TECHNOLOGY AND FACILITY NEEDS FOR 2018 - 2050 The purpose of this task is to identify and evaluate alternative approaches to managing solid waste in the Region for the period from 2018 to 2050. The objectives of this task are to identify alternative technologies or management approaches to collection, recycling, transfer, disposal, and environmental management; evaluate effectiveness of alternatives; evaluate associated capital, operational, and maintenance costs; and summarize advantages and disadvantages of alternatives. SCS anticipates the following work efforts under this task: . Identify the federal and state legislation and rules that will affect solid waste management in the Region, any ordinances that have been enacted within the local municipalities and recent court cases that effect solid waste management. The objective of this task is to provide a listing, description, and discussion of the key regulations, ordinances, and court cases that must be considered in managing solid waste. . Evaluate collection options, including alternative franchising approaches, private versus public collection operations for commercial and residential collection, transfer station versus direct haul, contracting options, and billing. . Evaluate recycling operations and options. The evaluation will address State goals versus what has been achieved by the Region historically and under current conditions, current recycling programs and effectiveness of programs, recycling collection and processing approaches, current education and outreach efforts, identify problem areas and deficiencies in system and alternatives for improving recycling. 2007-11-13 2 HRPDC Scope of Services S C S E N GIN E E R-S . Evaluate solid waste processing and disposal options. The focus of this evaluation will be to identify approaches for solid waste disposal after 2018. The alternatives to be considered will include siting a new solid waste management disposal facility (regional or individually by HRPDC communities), alternative technologies for processing and disposing solid waste such as waste-to-energy, compo sting, and bioreactor technology, participation in a regional approach to solid waste disposal, and contracted out-of-county transfer and disposal. Supporting information for this analysis will include a recently completed technology assessment by SCS for the Monterey Solid Waste District, and similar analyses prepared by others for the City of New York and Los Angeles Sanitary District. The evaluation will consider the current and anticipated processing levels at which these technologies will be available in 2018. SCS will rank these technologies in terms of commercially proven, proven at a processing level below current Hampton Road needs, or commercially unproven. U sing data supplied by the propose system vendors, SCS will develop estimated capital costs, operating costs, and life cycle system costs for input into the financial analysis for the project. . Evaluate how the Navy's solid waste and energy needs will be coordinated with the regional solid waste management approach. . Evaluate schedule for implementation of various aspects of a new regional solid waste management approach, including development of cooperative agreements, siting studies, land purchase, design, permitting, procurement, and construction. . Prepare pro forma cost and revenue model and evaluate the following alternatives: Manage solid waste separately. Each HRPDC community manages collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste on their own without a regional solid waste management infrastructure (i.e., incineration, compo sting, recycling, and landfill) or cooperation. Manage solid waste cooperatively similar to the current SPSA model in terms of basic infrastructure. This alternative will consider facility needs with and without a new or otherwise upgraded waste to energy facility, and with or without recycling. Manage solid waste cooperatively, but with different cooperative agreements. SCS will evaluate two such alternative cooperative arrangements based on conversations with the HRPDC. . Conduct workshop to discuss findings (See Task 4). 2007-11-13 3 HRPDC Scope of Services SCS ENGINEERS 3.0 EVALUATE INSTITUTIONAL MODELS FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SCS will develop, screen, and analyze alternative institutional models for regional solid waste management, including public, private or combination systems. We anticipate this task will include the following major work efforts: . Interview Chief Administrative Officers of the HRPDC community to receive input on their ideas about potential alternatives for long-term management of the Region's solid waste after 2018. . Contact and survey the following solid waste authorities and organizations to document the institutional structure, services provided, unique challenges, and cost structure (if available): Fairfax County, Virginia Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority, Pennsylvania Napa Vallejo Waste Management District, California Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, Maryland Pine lias County Department of Solid Waste Operations, Florida Portland Metro, Oregon Regional Waste Systems, Maine Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, California Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida Virginia Peninsulas Public Service Authority . Compare the administrative and operational structure and functions of SPSA to other similar organizations (including recommendations for improvement). . Develop and evaluate alternative institutional models that may be applicable to the region and present findings to the HRPDC (See Task 4). For the purposes of this scope of services, we assume the following institutional models will be evaluated to identify the required organizational structure, staffing, cooperative agreements needed, and advantages and disadvantages of each: A new fully integrated, publicly o~ed and operated facility managed by a new regional authority. A fully integrated, publicly owned and operated facility managed by SPSA or some modified version of SPSA. A public/private partnership managed by a regional authority (SPSA or a new authority). Each municipality independently manages its own solid waste stream and develops contracts for collection, processing, and disposal services. 2007-11-13 4 HRPDC Scope of Services SCS ENGINEERS Select municipalities agree to cooperate together to manage their solid waste and develop contracts for collection, processing, and disposal services. . Update the pro forma model developed in Task 2 to incorporate any additional overhead costs relating to the institutional structures identified above. A key output of the model will be the tipping fees on an annual basis and a leveled-off tipping fee. This leveled fee will be a representation of a long-term tipping fee that is particularly useful for the comparison of alternatives with different expenditure patterns. . Present fmdings and recommendations to the HRPDC (See Task 4). 4.0 FACILITATION WITH CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS To facilitate discussion of the regional approach, we propose that a series of preliminary meetings and several work sessions be held with the Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) or their representatives to discuss the values, technologies, critical steps, schedule, and approaches to managing solid waste in the region beyond 2018. The number and scope of these sessions may change as the project progresses based on direction provided by the CAOs through the HRPDC. SCS will coordinate with the HRPDC regarding any scope changes. A description of the proposed sessions, including the objectives, goals, and informational needs of each is provided below. 4.1 INITIAL MEETINGS WITH HRPDC MEMBER COMMUNITIES SCS will meet with HRPDC member community staff and CAOs to discuss their respective solid waste management organizations, facilities, resources, services provided, issues, independent initiatives, and obtain relevant background information. From these discussions, SCS will develop a list of key planning factors affecting solid waste management in the Region, including perceptions regarding public versus private ownership of solid waste management systems (landfills, recycling facilities, resource recovery, compo sting, etc.), use of flow control, and the value and importance of regional cooperation, environmental conservation (recycling, green energy, sustainability), and working with the Navy. 4.2 SESSION 1 - CAN WE WORK TOGETHER? 4.2.1 Objective Assess whether the Region can develop a unified vision for managing its solid waste beyond 2018, and if not, what are the stumbling blocks and constraints and how could these be resolved? 4.2.2 Goals . Identify the solid waste goals for each city and county in the Region. For example, identify maximum tip fee each municipality is willing to pay; determine how 2007-11-13 5 HRPDC Scope of Services SCS ENGINEERS committed each community is to recycling, identify the planning horizon desired (e.g., 25 years, 50 years, or other), . Identify needs that the cities and counties have in common regarding solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal. . Identify political and financial constraints to cooperation. . How would you structure things if you were in control? 4.2.3 Information Needs for Session . Identify public and private solid waste management resources in Region. This would include personnel, solid waste facilities, land resources, transportation resources (e.g., ports), and contracts. SPSA listed the solid waste resources within the region and surrounding area in its 2006 Solid Waste Master Plan. These resources would be confirmed and evaluated in the context of how they could fit into managing the Region's solid waste. This would include personnel, solid waste facilities, land resources, transportation resources (e.g., ports), and contracts. . Identify the resources that each city and county have that can be of benefit to the Region as a whole (e.g., land, facilities, money , waste). List of solid waste resources by municipality (collection, transfer, recycling, etc.) 4.3 SESSION 2 - IS IT ALL ABOUT LAND? 4.3.1 Objective The objective of this session will be to review the long-term disposal requirements of the Region, review and assess current relevance of previous landfill siting studies, and determine the land requirements for an integrated solid waste management facility. A landfill is a key component of the solid waste system, regardless of whether you incinerate, recycle, or othelWise process the waste. Landfills require significant land resources and are difficult and controversial to site. However, landfills are critical to any solid waste system. The objective of this session will be to evaluate and discuss the land requirements for a solid waste management facility if the Region manages its own solid waste needs for a 50-year planning period beyond 2018. The Region has several landfill resources. SPSA owns and operates the regional landfill in Suffolk. The City of Virginia Beach owns and operates its own landfill on a limited basis. The City of Portsmouth owns and operates a construction, demolition, and debris landfill. In addition, there are several private CD&D landfills in the SPSA service area. However, none of these landfills have sufficient capacity to meet the long-term disposal requirements of the Region. Private disposal facilities outside the Region will be considered and the associated transportation and disposal costs and factors that need to be considered to use these facilities. 2007-11-13 6 HRPDC Scope of Services SCS ENGINEERS 4.3.2 Goals . Confirm solid waste projections for the Region, including the residential, commercial, and industrial waste streams. . Evaluate recycling approach and impact on the amount of waste that may require disposal. . Consider volume reduction and energy recovery technologies (recycling and waste- to-energy facilities) and impact on disposal requirements. . Review previous landfill siting study performed by SPSA and assess whether the top candidate sites are still available and suitable for development as a regional1andfill. 4.3.3 Information Needs for Session . Landfill siting study prepared by SPSA. . Solid waste generation and disposal projections. . Estimate of waste controlled and managed by SPSA and that which is managed outside the Region. . List of active landfills in the Region and remaining disposal capacities (both permitted and projected maximum site capacities). 4.4 SESSION 3 - RECYCLE, BURN, OR SEND IT TO SOMEONE ELSE'S BACKYARD? 4.4.1 Objective The objective of this session will be to review approaches and technologies available to realistically manage the Region's solid waste, the reliability and effectiveness of each, develop estimates of capital and operation and maintenance requirements, and develop a short-list of technologies and approaches that appear feasible for the Region. The approaches that will be considered will include, but not be limited to the following: . Transfer, haul, and disposal of waste in the Region . Transfer, haul, and disposal of waste out of the Region . W aste- to-Energy processing . Thermal conversion . Biological conversion . Recyclable material recovery and marketing 2007-11-13 7 HRPDC Scope of Services SCS ENGINEERS 4.4.2 Goals . Develop an understanding of the capacity, effectiveness, and reliability of the various solid waste management technologies that are available and could be implemented in the Region. . Understand the advantages and disadvantages of each technology. . Develop capital and operation and maintenance costs matrix. . Develop a short list of alternatives for further consideration and evaluation. 4.4.3 Information Needs . Technology descriptions. . Case studies of where these technologies have been employed at the scale required for the Region. . Budgetary cost estimates for capital and operation and maintenance costs as a function of processing capacity. 4.5 SESSION 4 - WHOSE SANDBOX WILL YOU PLAY IN? 4.5.1 Objective The objective of this session will be to consider solid waste management on an individual municipality basis and on a cooperative basis. The advantages and disadvantages of the current SPSA model will be discussed, and compared with other institutional models. Each municipality has certain resources, disposal needs, and challenges. The larger municipalities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach, which have populations in excess of 100,000, are generally more fully developed with limited land available for siting a large integrated solid waste management facility, but generate significant quantities of waste. The City of Virginia Beach has an existing landfill that can provide disposal capacity for its citizens for several years, but it is not big enough to handle the Region's waste stream. The smaller, less developed municipalities of Franklin, Southhampton County, Isle of Wight County, and Suffolk have more land resources available for development ofa regional solid waste facility, but do not generate sufficient quantities of waste to justify "going it alone". 4.5.2 Goals . Identify the resources that each municipality offers towards a regional solution. . Identify specific goals that each municipality has with respect to solid waste management (e.g., max tip fee, type of technology preferred). . Identify constraints to regional cooperation. 2007-11-13 8 HRPDC Scope of Services SCS ENGINEERS . Identify what is liked and disliked regarding current SPSA organization, governance, and operation, and what would you change. . Identify potential approaches to resolving constraints to regional cooperation. . Review other potential institutional models that could be employed in the Region. 4.5.3 Information Needs . Case studies of other regional solutions throughout the country. . Breakdown of solid waste quantities by Region (from SPSA study). . Confidential compilation of comments regarding the organization, governance, and operation of SPSA. . Cost components of solid waste system, including collection, transfer, processing, and disposal. 4.6 SESSION 5 - A BRAVE NEW WORLD - THE FUTURE BEYOND 2018 4.6.1 Objective The objective of this last session will be to develop a facility and institutional framework for managing solid waste in the Region for the period of 2018 and beyond. The framework could include the following alternatives: . A new fully integrated, publicly owned and operated facility managed by a new regional authority. . A fully integrated, publicly owned and operated facility managed by SPSA or some modified version of SPSA. . A public/private partnership managed by a regional authority (SPSA or a new authority). . Each municipality independently manages its own solid waste stream and develops contracts for collection, processing, and disposal services. . Select municipalities agree to cooperate together to manage its solid waste and develops contracts for collection, processing, and disposal services. 4.6.2 Goals . Confirm degree of interest in committing to a regional approach. 2007-11-13 9 HRPDC Scope of Services SCS ENGINEERS . Identify the technical, institutional, and technological options for realistically managing waste in the Region. . Identify the top two approaches for further development. 4.6.3 Information Needs . Compilation of regional models used elsewhere in the Country, identifying basic organization structures and governance approaches. . Compilation of findings from previous Sessions. 4.7 ADDITIONAL MEETINGS Additional unplanned meetings and briefings likely will needed during the course of the study. We have budgeted 80 hours of professional time and additional support for this purpose. 5.0 PREPARE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS SCS anticipates the following work efforts under this task: . Prepare and submit draft and final report presenting findings and recommendations to the'HRPDC and the CAO's. Based on the results of Tasks 1 through 4, prepare a final and draft report presenting the findings and recommendations to the HRPDC and the Chief Administrative Officers to consider. We anticipate the recommendations will address the following: Technologies that will provide a stable, reliable, environmentally responsible, and cost-effective means for managing waste in the Region. Public/Private cooperation needed to cost-effectively manage solid waste needs for 2018 to 2050. Institutional model that will best serve the region and balance financial, technological, administrative factors. Key tasks to be accomplished and schedule for implementation. . Review and address comments on the draft report. . Hold two meetings with HRPDC staff to discuss comments on preliminary draft report. The deliverables for this task will be a draft-fmal and final solid waste master plan report. 2007-11-13 1 0 HRPDC Scope of Services SCS ENGINEERS 6.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION The purpose of this task is to provide overall management and administration of the project. Tasks will include invoice preparation, preparation of progress reports, and other contract administrative tasks. 7.0 SCH EDU LE See Exhibit A. 8.0 FEE See Exhibit B. 2007-11-13 11 c .2" ';5 Et' ~lD CJ'O _ C C) l'll "CCICl ic; ON g'~ _CD 2 i .!!= ll. l'll III C 'Ol'll l'll:E o CD 0::0 c~ .2> 1:1.'0 i15 :%:1/) ~~ o ::iSiSI ~~ w .... -_...-._.~...~...-.._- - .. --------~--_._--_.-.-...__...._'-_.,.- ---------- .... .... ~ CJ) to to .. to cr:> .. .. :g :g .. :g 8 .. .. .. 0 0 0 0 co co 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co co 1'; 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 co 0 0 I~ t:! t:! ;a ~ N N I:! N t:! ~ 5 ~ I:! i ~ ~ N ~ .~ :iii ~ ~ .0> ~ l':! in .~ ~ ';;j ~ ~ ~ ,- ;:: ~ t:! t:! N ... ,., GO 10 ~ N ~ '" GO C') i~ Is ..... .... ..... ex:> ;GO .. .. :g to cr:> .. .. 8 :g .. I ... ... .. .. 0 0 0 8 co co 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 co '0 '0 0 0 0 co co 0 0 co 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 '" 0 s: ~ s: a: ~ 5j ~ N N t:! ~ t:! S :5 ... ... !::! ~ ... .i'l ~ 10 10 c:; ~ is 0 ;;; ;:j s s: = ;:: t:! ~ ~ !:! t:! ... <is 0 ~ ... N GO ~ ~ I I~I' iZ, . I : I ;--., . i : I !gl 11 : I ,''' !~! ~-1 : 1 : I l~ H i'5i [""'I :1 : I , I ICI ~~l H !J 1;;1 f~ I I i~ i I !l . ~I !~i "' 1...1 f~l : I H Icl' '0 "t~t 8; I N' , -T--'! :,,1 '<.> lOi i ! ;>1 l~I--' ! I :-1 Igr ~ -l1 u:: ; 1ij ,>- '<II c ,,, o J..... ~ I o , ! i I I I I I ~ '.''[j--7-' P . ~ 1 N 1 CD <II >- <II " o u l!! 1: o () '6 " .2 '0 ~ ~ ~ Q) c e en 0 c. ~ l~ c: ~ ~ 'ti E 'Q,) S co U II ! l~ ! i ~ ~ l ~!E 8 ~ .~ ~ : -~-I--._-------_._-..,-,--,._-,---:- ! .,.: Q j... I i'" ! ;... !'" ~ .. " .:! ... if&' [DO .. >- .. " o ... E .! .. >- en .! .. .. ;: :!! '6 en ii c: o a, .. a: '" ,: Wi ';( w ~ .. "> ~ . ~ ". <II .. ~ :r-. i c i ~ ~ ~ " '0 en ~ g. '" c o l f "' ~ 'i'; '" :et i~ i N o o 11. a: :I: o <.> ~ ~ ~ .2 go a: <.> ... 'C ~ '" DO o .. >- .. " '" to i .. >- <II " ~ .. " .. .. Z ~ U <II ... " c: .. >- CII o '6 c: ~ u .. ~ ! :l :; ... .. "OJ :l ii > w <II " " .. ~ iij '" .. -' " " <II ,; .;!: iij 0; '0 .. -' i- o iij "'5 '" .. a:: .. iij :l iij > W ~ 5 ~ go '5 ~ e <.> m ~ ~ W ... ~ .. .. ~ :: :N o 0 i i ... ~ Z ~ ~ ;; a; ~ '6 <.> o ~ ~ W ,jl 5 'e ~ 8 ~ <.> m ~ ~ W :~ 0: : 0 i .. ~ ... :!l i 1 .. <.> 8' os c ~ <.> ~ E ~ <.> m ~ ~ W ~ il E ! < '0 .. ~ .. C < ~ .l! o It <.> ~ c <.> > e ~ 8 ~ 1 g- o; > ~ ,on ,- ;~ o o L ~ E ~ '" ... ~ "' 0- i ~ 0 " 0 I[ ~ .. E .. .. ~ 0 l- E '" 1l ~ e 11. I .. ~ ~ 11. 0- :> i % '!l '" '" ~o ~ <.> c 0 .. ~ ~ <.> ~ :i 0- 0- :> :> ;: i 0 '!l a: a: .l ~ ~ E i ~ ::!: en m ~ ~ .. e ~ ~ ~ 11. ... g N <.> <.> LL ~ ~s iO sst (/)5 ij- ~a.; 216 11.0 i .. >- .. " :W) .., i i .. ~ ~ ~ ,jl e 0- ~ C Q o ~ .! .. .. ;: :!:! '6 III .. oS! .. a; " o ~ ii " ,g ~ ., .. .s .. "OJ :l ii > w ~ o ~ .S; i ~ " ~ g- ! o t ~ c o '" o ... 'E ~ m E ;;; ~ ;J ~ ~ o o .., ". .. .. ~ ;~ c .2"t1 ';5 E>- ~~ (J'tl t; ; i:co i~ c~ ~c: _ CD 2 ~ ..!:: Q. c 1/1 III ~Ji o CD O::'l;j c~ S.. c,'tl i~ :J:t/) <~ _ 0 :E"Sl :c CII )(0:: w I 11;1 ,z :i i i8i I I I--j I I l~ , I H , I :~ 1<1 ib i~ i-'I : I iel W 1 ! !:.-: l~j d jj ,~\ Iii u 1..1 h~! , I :-i , I liil ~;,-'J' ~- i~1 !el ; I , I ! i~i-, H i81 ., g It:! ~ !~ u: i I 18 1i I~ u; i _,.1 '~ c !- ,51 T! .5 1-;; :~ i~ Ii :8. ! j=' ~ ! ':..-~. o ., " ~ ;a .. " " ~ ~ o o 0. '" J: o go ~ ~ ~ 0. .. o o N t: ~ .. o o ~ .. >- .. " - o N f! .. u 5: o .. ~ .s .. 'E E " < - .. :c u ; 'i c ~ ~ u .. ... . ... ~ .. .. .... -1 g ~ .. " " .. M t .. M G C = E E o o G .. E ~ o o 0. 0: J: = z: '0 z: := ~ i ~ on N o CD o o !::! co !::! N CD o o N o N (;j ~ ~ .. .<= 0; '" o .... "" ~ ~ c: co U I c: o 'in .. Q) en '. 'n o CD o o N Cil N .. CD o o ~ !::! ... ~ ... ." c: co ....J 'S o .c < ~ .!! I N c: o 'in .. Q) en ,on ,n o CD o o !::! ... !::! co CD o o !::! CD u; ~ ":ll ijj Q) c: o Q) E o en .9 = ." c: .. en 5 E " m .; 'tl ~ Q) c:: I '" c: o .~ Q) en :~ o CD o o N N 00 8 !::! !!! CD ~ ... .E >- co 0:: " ~ ~ " o .c ." c: co en ~ o ~ I ... c: o .~ Q) en :~ o CD o o !::! t: o CD o o ~ o ~ N ." c: o >- Q) m Q) ::; 'S ... Q) .<= .... I ." 't: ~ 3 Q) Z ~ co a:; < I It) c: o ~ Q) en .. " o ~ iil .. " o ~ M ,., .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ 1 o G 5 '''' ,n .., o o !::! .., N ~ .., o o N u; .. .. >- .. " o ... .. C ~ co ." c: .. E E o u .. " " c: co 't: o ... .. " ! .. ... .. It I '" ~ .. co .... '~ [Do .. o o N o '" C;; .. o o N ill .. .. >- .. ." o ... 't: o ... .. " ;:: .. Q CD o o ~ N 00 CD o o !::! !!! CD i '" 't: o ... CII " ~ co ... ~ c.. ,N . CD o o !::! al CD o o !::! "- N 00 ~ c: o n " ." e c.. ." c: co 3 CII "S CII " CQ E CII :E '" . . CD o o !::! N Cil CD o o !::! !::! '" .. >- co ." o 't: o ... Q) " 4iij o 'E .c " en '. '. o CD o o !::! o I:l '" CD o o !::! al i ... 3 CII "S; ., " u o c.. c:: ::c l .., '0 o N ;;; N o - .. o ~ ;;; ~ .. >- .. ." '" - 't: o ... .. " CQ " u: o o . ~ E g '" ~ .~ g. i e .. " 0 ClO 8 !::! N ~ ClO o o N ,00 N S! L I[ ~ ~ E .. g ... '" E ~ ~ 'f I ClO o o !::! !!! ~ ClO o o 'N (;j N o - .. !1 ~ 0. ... ::> i ~ '" .. Uo ~ ClO o o !::! ,ClO N S! ~ ~ ;';i .. ~ ~ ... ... ::> ::> i 10 & Cll: i N ~ ,.., ,0 o !::! .., N o - ClO o o N 00 !::! o - .., o o ~ .r 't: o c. ., c: Q) ,!:! iii c: u:: c: o n " ." e c.. ." c: co 3 ., "S; ., c: iii c: G; :E ., >- co ." o .. >- .. ." ... N g ~ 1 ~ ::l; '" 't: o c. ., " iii c u: " .!! ~ III 'E E ." < ." c: co C ., E ., '" co c: .. ::iE U .. 2' c.. m .. .. ; ~ ... 0. 'e .c " en ,.:. o ~ .. .. "- -co c .. .2.... =0 ,,0 cot:! z:.., ~!:: 1: 21ii 0.0 ... ~ .. .. .... on . ........-..---;---.---.--..--.---..-.-...----.-' :~ .... . ! ~:ft.~<<",g~li:8f:"'~ Exhibit B. Fee Estimate Consultant Services for Development of a Solid Waste Management System for Southside Hampton Roads I Prof. I Task I Fee Tasks Hours Duration ($) Task 1 - Review Existing Regional Solid Waste System Review Background on Regional Solid Waste Management Summarize Regional Value of HRPDC Subtotal, Task 1 Task 3 - Evaluate Institutional Models for Solid Waste Management Contact and survey similar organizations Develop and evaluate institutional models Update pro forma model Present findings to HRPDC Subtotal, Task 3 Tc.sk'4...Fa Task 5 - Prepare Report and Recommendations Draft Report Final Report Subtotal, Task 5 Task..6..ProjectManagerneritand....Admiriistration 80 32 112 2 wks 2 wks 13,000 5,000 18,000 56 2 wks 9,000 72 3 wks 12,000 24 1 wk 4,000 40 1 wk 7,000 192 32,000 212 88 300 40 days 1 5 days 31 ,000 12,000 43,000 19,000 TOTAL, PROJECT, ALL TASKS I 1,524 I I 248,000 216 days B-1 ~~ff\ ....' ~! ~~ ~ ~~~ -.~ :~ ~\......,.. :-) ...":.~.....:. ~;'.J -\,,~,-~~"~.J ~~.-~..f~"j ~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $48,000 from General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to Fund the City's Share of Costs for the Tidewater Builders Association's Building Trades Academy MEETING DATE: January 8, 2008 Background: The Tidewater Builders Association (TBA) , in partnership with industry, government, and community organizations, formed Building Trades Academy, Inc. (the Academy) with a mission to deliver workforce education, training, and employment services that leads to better jobs and careers in the building trades to low-income residents of South Hampton Roads. Additional information is provided in the attachment. We have received a request from TBA for a City grant of $48,000 to fund 12 low-income Virginia Beach residents to attend the Pre-Apprenticeship Training Program at the Academy. The TBA is an approved Individual Training Account (ITA) vendor approved by Opportunity, Inc., the Hampton Roads Workforce Development Board. Federal Workforce Investment Act funding to our region supports the ITA vouchers. TBA is entitled to 30 adult ITA vouchers a year (July 1-June 30) and currently has 9 remaining as of January 2, 2008. TBAcan request more slots, which it has in the past, and accept youth (under 21 years of age) ITAs as well. Under previous guidelines and funding from Opportunity, Inc., Virginia Beach residents enrolled and completed TBA training (4 year-to-date for FY 2008, 11 in FY 2007, 17 in FY 2006, and 21 in FY 2005). . Considerations: TBA is requesting $48,000 from the City of Virginia Beach to fund a portion of operating costs for the Academy. TBA indicated that it has made grant requests to other Hampton Roads cities estimated at $378,000. The City of Chesapeake has agreed to provide funding and the request is under consideration in the City of Norfolk. This request was not received within the timeframe for consideration as part of our city's Community Organization Grant process. After this transfer, the remaining balance in General Fund Reserves for Contingencies will be $608,429. . Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council Agenda Process. . Alternatives: Not appropriating the funding will not provide workforce development for twelve low-income Virginia Beach residents. . Recommendations: . Attachments: Ordinance; Academy information Recommended Action: Council Discussion Submitting Department/Agency: CityMa~ll-~ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $48,000 FROM 2 GENERAL FUND RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES 3 TO FUND THE CITY'S SHARE OF COSTS FOR THE 4 TIDEWATER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION'S 5 BUILDING TRADES ACADEMY 6 7 WHEREAS, the Tidewater Builders Association has requested $48,000 of city 8 funding for the Building Trades Academy, which will provide to low-income Virginia 9 Beach residents training in a pre-apprenticeship program for future employment in the 10 residential construction industry. 11 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 13 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA; 14 15 That $48,000 is transferred from General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to the 16 Community Organization Grant unit to fund the City's share of cost for the Tidewater 17 Builders Association's Building Trades Academy. of Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the ,2008, day APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ~~F City Attorney's 0 Ice Jj~~O_ \~ Management Services CA 1 0606 R-1 January 3, 2008 TEA EUILDIJ.VG T TBA is the only home builders association in the nation to operate a workforce development pro- gram. TBA's Building Trades Academy helps fill the local industry's need for skilled workers and offers career opportunities for economically disadvan- taged men and women. Since its inception in 1978, over 4,000 economi- cally disadvantaged students have graduated, and 100 percent of the graduates have been employed Here, a class from the BuildingTradesAcademy students on graduation day. gets hands-on training, as they build a storage shed at the Virginia Zoo in Norfolk. The TBA Building Trades Academy has been ftmded through the U.S. Department of Labor and has continually been one of the highest-ranking programs in terms of providing full-time employment through CETA and lTPA, and now with the Workforce Investment Board and Opportunity Inc. In 2000, the program won the U.S. Conference of Mayors Ex- cellence in PubliclPrivate Partnership award for participation in the Chesapeake's Affordable Homeownership Partnership. TheTBA BuildingTradesAcademy received a $700,OOOYouth Build grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De- BTA graduate Rashime DeVaughn en- joys working on the conversion oiThe velopment to provide training in the construction trades to young Rotunda in Norfolk as an employee of people. John E. Hall electrical company. The BuildingTradesAcademy is in the process of expanding its program and adding a life skills component that will include GED, computer training, discount autos and free computers. Did you know... · TBA's Building Trades Academy averages 80-100 graduates a year. Of those, 90% are minorities, including 10% women. · The construction industry is expected to add nearly 1 million new jobs in the next eight years, making it among the economy's top 10 largest sources of job growth, according to the U.S. Dept. of Labor. · Opportunities for workers to form their own firms are better in construction than in many other industries. · The Building Trades Academy has constructed 22 workforce housing homes and has worked on numerous community projects. r.~~"":\. ~~'~~:.$"2, ,ra:t"l" ..""";',%1 (":.:." ".. ..... 'j....., ~ef' ," ~~~ (~~I~:.~~~! ,'-"-^-', CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution supporting multi-modal accommodations for interim improvements to City rights-of-way MEETING DATE: January 8, 2008 . Background: City Council is concerned with making reasonable accommodations for various users of the City's public roads, such as providing adequate accommodations within its rights-of-way for multiple modes of transportation, including motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Current standards and practices provide such multi-modal accommodations, including bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, whenever possible and feasible when roadways are improved to their ultimate width and location as shown in the City's Master Transportation Plan and in accordance with adopted typical roadway sections. . Considerations: When roadway improvements of an interim nature are being constructed, there may be opportunities to provide reasonable accommodations to enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. if feasible, as dictated by project purpose, project site constraints, and project budget. At the request of Councilperson Wilson and with support from the Department of Public Works and the Department of Parks and Recreation, the attached resolution is presented to City Council for consideration, support, and endorsement. . Public Information: The proposed resolution was endorsed by the Bikeway and Trail Advisory Committee on November 14, 2007. . Alternatives: Do not adopt the resolution. The practice of providing multi-modal accommodations will continue with ultimate roadway infrastructure improvements. . Recommendations: Adopt the resolution for endorsement to provide. when feasible, multi-modal accommodations with interim roadway infrastructure improvements. . Attachments: Resolution. Requested by Councilmember Rosemary Wilson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING MULTI-MODAL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach is concerned with making reasonable accommodations for the various users of the City's public roads, including motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide accommodations for multiple modes of transportation within its rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, current standards and practices require multi-modal accommodations, including bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, whenever possible and feasible when permanent roadway improvements are designed to their ultimate width and location as shown in the Master Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council also desires, when roadway improvements of an interim nature are being designed, that reasonable accommodations be made to enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, if feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: When roadway improvements of an interim nature are being designed, reasonable accommodations to enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists shall be included in the plans, if feasible, as dictated by project purpose, project site constraints and project budget. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2008. day of APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 10~ Department of Public Works "J CA 10333 R-1 12/27/07 V:\applications\Citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D030\P002\00046044.DOC 1 K. PLANNING 1. Variance to ~4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO), Subdivision for RJP, L.L.C., at 204 62nd Street re subdividing an existing lot into two (2) lots and redeveloping a single-family dwelling on each of the newly created lots. DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 2. Application of FOR PETE'S SAKE, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit re a riding academy and horses for hire or boarding at 2428 London Bridge Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3. Application of HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit re a columbarium at 5350 Providence Road. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 4. Application of NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. for the Modification to a Conditional Change of Zoning request (approved by City Council on October 25,2005 for S & J LLC) at 3762 Shore Drive and 3707 Stratford Road DISTRICT 4 - BA YSIDE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 5. Ordinances to AMEND: a. Sections 405, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806, and 1807 ofthe City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) establishing restrictions on development of property within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and ADDING provisions re redevelopment of property in Air Installations Compatible Use Noise Zones (AICUZ) b. Official Zoning Map by ADDING Sub-Areas 1,2 and 3 of the 65 -70 dB DNL Noise Zone c. Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions re the 65 - 70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and a Map of Sub-Areas 1,2, and 3 of the 65 -70 dB DNL Noise Zones RECOMMENDATION APPROV AL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall. Municipal Center. 2401 Courthouse Drive. Tuesday, January 8, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. The following applications will be heard: Ordinance to Amend Sections 405. 1802. 1803. 1804 1805, 1806, and 1807 of the City Zoning Ordinance establishing restrictions on development of property within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility, Traffic Area and adding provisions pertaining to redevelopment of property in Air Installations Compatible Use Noise Zones. Ordinance to Amend the Official Zoning Map by the' addition of Sub-Areas 1. 2 and 3 of the 65 - 70 dB DNL Noise Zone Ordinance to Amend the Comprehensive Plan by Incorporating provisions pertaining to the 65 - 70 dB' DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and a Map of Sub-Areas 1. 2. and 3 of the 65 - 70 dB DNL Noise Zones. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE For Pete's Sake, L.L.C. Application: gonditional Use Permit for a riding academy and horses for hire or boarding at 2428 London' Bridge Road (GPIN 2405929310). DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE Hope Lutheran Church Application: Conditional Use Permit for a columbarium at 5350 Providence Road (GPIN 1466355165). DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHAVEN Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regarc to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for RJP, L.L.C., located at 204 62nd Street (GPIN 2419724146). DISTRICT 4 - SA YSIDE I'Jantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Application: Modification of a request approved by City Council on October 25. 2005 (S & J, L.L.C.) at 3762 Shore Drive and 3707 Stratford Road (GPINs 1489387919; 1489396043; 1489395071), A1t interested citizens are invited to attend. Rutll Hodges Fraser, MMC City Cierk Copies of the proposed ordinances, resolutions and amendments are on file and may be examined in the Department of Planning or online at httEL/WWW.vbI!Ov.co~ For information call 385-4621. It you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY ('I S:DIC'~ nC'Clt'c ""+ '2QI:-il'2n'2 Map L-4 Mop Not. to Sc"le 003 r .~ .{~~~t~ f?'~. ......:'t,l, (! '-", :..... .,t::. ... \"" \~i.,....,... . :~~ ~:-:: ...;/J ~+..~oI'~J ~:r "" \.. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ~ ITEM: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for RJP, L.L.C. Property is located at 204 62nd Street (GPIN 2419724146). DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHAVEN. MEETING DATE: January 8,2008 . Background: The existing lot is 11,925 square feet and has a lot width of 90 feet. The lot is currently occupied by three (3) units: a one-story single-family dwelling located near the front of site, a two-story duplex located at the southwest corner of the property, and a detached garage centered along the eastern property line. . Considerations: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the existing lot into two (2) lots in order to redevelop the site with a single-family dwelling on each of the newly created lots. The existing structures will be demolished. Future homes will be two-story structures with dormers. Both of the newly created lots (Lot 2A and Lot 2B) will have a lot width of 45 feet and a lot area of 5962.5 square feet. A subdivision variance is required because the two (2) proposed new lots (Lot 2A and Lot 2B) do not meet the required 50-foot minimum lot width established by the Zoning Ordinance for the R-5R Residential District. The request is compatible with the surrounding uses, particularly with the conditions recommended below. One of the goals for the North End, as often expressed by the North End Civic League, is to reduce the mass and scale of buildings in the area. Another goal is to encourage single-family dwellings instead of duplex dwellings. The request is not a detriment to the neighborhood, as the resulting lot sizes are consistent with some of those in the surrounding area. The proposed development of the site for two (2) single-family dwellings is more acceptable to the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan than the existing use of the lot for three (3) dwelling units, a density greater than what is permitted in the surrounding area. The applicant has met with the civic league for this neighborhood, and has received an endorsement for the project provided that Lots 2A and 2B will be for single-family homes only, and that all future homes will be two-story structures with dormers. The applicant has agreed to those conditions. RJP, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposed development of the lots with single-family dwellings is more compatible to the surrounding neighborhood than the existing use of the lot, the requested variance is minimal and should not be a detriment to the surrounding area, and there was no opposition to the request. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The number of dwelling units on each parcel shall not exceed one (1). A note to such affect shall be placed on the plat for recordation. 2. Single-family dwellings constructed on the parcels shall be no taller than two- stories or 35-feet tall, whichever is more restrictive. 3. The exterior design of the single-family dwellings shall incorporate the use of dormers as an architectural element. 4. The design of the exterior of the proposed dwellings shall be approved by the Planning Director or his designee prior to the issuance of building permits. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department, \ ~,~ City Manager: ~ 't ,~~ ~ RJP,LLC Agenda Item 3 December 12, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Leslie Bonilla REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 204 62nd Street GPIN: 24197241460000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 5 - L YNNHAVEN SITE SIZE: 11,925 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST Existing Lot: The existing lot is 11,925 square feet and has a lot width of 90 feet. The lot currently houses a one-story single- family dwelling located near the front of site, a two-story duplex located at the southwest corner of the property, and a detached garage centered along the eastern property line. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the existing lot into two lots in order to re- develop the site with a single-family dwelling on each of the newly created lots. The existing structures will be demolished. Future homes will be two-story structures with dormers. Both of the newly created lots (Lot 2A and Lot 2B) will have a lot width of 45 feet and a lot area of 5962.5 square feet. A subdivision variance is required because Lot 2A and Lot 2B do not meet the required 50-foot minimum lot width established by the Zoning Ordinance for the R-5R Residential District. JWn Lot2A Lot2B Lot Width in feet 50 45* 45* Lot Area in square feet 5,000 5,962.5 5,962.5 *Variance required RJP,LLC Agenda Item 3 Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Single-family and duplex dwellings with a detached garage. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: . Single-family and duplex dwellings I R-5R Residential District . Single-family and duplex dwellings I R-5R Residential District . Single-family and duplex dwellings I R-5R Residential District . Single-family and duplex dwellings I R-5R Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: There are no known significant natural resources or cultural features on this site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: Traffic Engineering and Public Works Project Management have no comments regarding this agenda item. The variance does not significantly change traffic volumes. WATER: This site currently connects to City water. The existing 5/8-inch meter (City ID #9505377) may be used or upgraded to accommodate the proposed development. There is an existing 6-inch City water main along 6200 Street. SEWER: The site currently connects to City sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station 102 and sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated, There is an existing 8-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main along 62nd Street. POLICE: As a matter of public safety, all stakeholders on this project are encouraged to incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and strategies in an effort to reduce opportunities for crimes to occur. 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. RJP,LLC Agenda Item 3 Page 2 B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self- inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request. 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. Evaluation: Staff recommends approval of this request with conditions. The request is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area, and is compatible with the surrounding uses, particularly with the conditions recommended below. One of the goals for the North End, as often expressed by the North End Civic League, is to reduce the mass and scale of buildings in the area. Another goal is to encourage single-family dwellings instead of duplex dwellings. The request is not a detriment to the neighborhood, as the resulting lot sizes are consistent with some of those in the surrounding area. The proposed development of the lots with single-family dwellings is more acceptable to the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan than the existing use of the lot, and reduces the negative impact to the community resulting from having an existing density greater than what is permitted on adjacent parcels. The applicant has met with the civic league for this neighborhood, and has received an endorsement for the project provided that Lots 2A and 2B will be for single-family homes only, and that all future homes will be two-story structures with dormers. The applicant has agreed to those conditions. RJP,LLC Agenda Item 3 Page 3 CONDITIONS 1. The number of dwelling units on each parcel shall not exceed one (1). A note to such affect shall be placed on the plat for recordation. 2. Single-family dwellings constructed on the parcels shall be no taller than two-stories or 35-feet tall, whichever is more restrictive. 3. The exterior design of the single-family dwellings shall incorporate the use of dormers as an architectural element. 4. The design of the exterior of the proposed dwellings shall be approved by the Planning Director or his designee prior to the issuance of building permits. 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. RJP,LLC Agenda Item 3 Page 4 I..I.l ::; z ~ <( u F z <( ;::! <: i 9::~5 7 2;}' LOT 2B 595.2:~5 SQc, I I ~h,Grr ; 62nd. STREET (100' R/W) {UNKkORN AVr - !,U, 7 &<' I ] -/' I ~: ~ · I t I 9 3 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION RJP,LLC Agenda Item 3 Page 5 Map L-4 Mop Not to Scele 003 # Date Description Action 1 03/14/00 Variance to Section 4.4 of Subdivision Ordinance Granted 2 01/28/92 Chanae in Nonconforming Use Withdrawn 3 11/09/99 Enlargement of Existing Single-Family (front dwelling along 615 Street) Granted 11/09/99 Enlargement of an Existing Single-Family (rear dwelling) Denied 08/22/00 Enlargement of an Nonconforming Single-Family Granted 12/12/00 Expansion of a Nonconforming Use to Allow Enlargement & Granted Improvement ZONING HISTORY RJP,LLC Agenda Item 3 Page 6 z o J I ~ U J I ~ ~ ea ~ u ~ ~ z 0' J I I ~ I I t::; ~ ~ ;:::::> ~ DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers. members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Applicant is a limited liability company whose members are ~l!~::ln Ppnnpr ~nrl Mi rh::lpl T PP"riPl"' ::I'Mri n;'::lV;.1 Pp""p,.- 11 T 2, List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entitl relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant, If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1, list the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc, below: (Attach list if necessary) same as applicant 2. list all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entitl relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, 1 & 2 See next page for footnotes SubdivIsion Vanance Application Page 10 of 11 Revised: 7!11106 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT RJP,LLC Agenda Item 3 Page 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Real Estate Services - Prudential Decker Realty; Legal Services - Kaufman and Canoles; cng1neer1ng serV1ces - ~allup ~urveyors ana cng1neers 1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va, Code S 2,2-3101, 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent- subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities, Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis: or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities," See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. Va. Code S 2.2-3101, CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled fer public hearing I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package, The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Planning to photograph and view the site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application, RJP, LLC Susan T. Pender, Member By: Applicant Signature RJP, LLC By: ~"zD- T. \/~ Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Susan T. Pender, Xember Print Name SubdiviSion Vanance ApplicatIOn Page 11 of 11 ReVised 7/11106 z o I I !< u I I ~ ~ ~ ~ U > Z o I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DISCLOSURE STATEMENT RJP, LLC Agenda Item 3 Page 8 NORTH VIRGINIA BEACH CIVIC LEAGUE ZONING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO Members of the Planning Commission Members of City Council City of Virginia Beach Monday, November 19,2007 Re: Application by RJP, LLC for a Subdivision Variance at 204 - 62nd Street, MB 7 P 84, GPIN No. 2419-72-4146-0000. The North Virginia Beach Civic League's (NVBCL) Zoning Review Committee has reviewed the merits of this request and "take no exception" to the subdivision variance as presented. We feel the fact that resulting lots will be restricted to single family homes, and that the subdivision does not pose any determent to adjacent properties, the request has merit. We request that if this variance is granted that the subdivision be recorded with note no. 3 proffered such that "Lot 2A and Lot 2B will be single family home building sites and that all future homes will be two story structures with dormers". Should there be any questions please contact me at 431- 1 041 x 16. Sincerely, Billy William D. Almond, ASLA Chair, NVBCL Zoning Review Committee Item #3 RJP, L.L.C. Subdivision Ordinance 204 62nd Street District 5 Lynnhaven December 12,2007 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The matter is agenda item 3. That is the application ofRJP, L.L.C. This is an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers regarding Subdivision Ordinance for property located at 204 62nd Street. This is in the Lynnhaven District. Welcome Ms. Crenshaw. Ann Crenshaw: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. Ann Crenshaw, an attorney with Kaufman and Canoles and I represent the applicant. I will miss Dot Wood very much. But I will catch up with her. Janice Anderson: Ms. Crenshaw, you have reviewed the four conditions and they are acceptable? Ann Crenshaw: Yes I have. And the conditions are acceptable to the applicant. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you very much. Ann Crenshaw: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Is there any opposition to this matter being place on the consent agenda? Seeing none, the Chairman has asked Kathy Katsias to review this application. Kathy Katsias: This is a subdivision variance of a subdivision ordinance that requires all newly created lots to meet all of the City's zoning requirements. It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the existing lot into two lots in order to redevelop the site with two single-family dwellings. The request is in with keeping the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for the area, and is compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff has recommended approval and we agree with staff. Therefore, we put it on the consent agenda. Janice Anderson: Thank you Kathy. Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion to approve the following item to be approved on the consent agenda. It is agenda item 3. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Dorothy Wood: Second. Item #3 RJP, L.L.C. Page 2 Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve consent agenda item 3, with a second by Dot Wood. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 3 for consent. .{~~ ::lf~~' ~.~ (0: . . H~ ~:\-,"- . - :;> '~"'''''''''~Jl!l ~.~,~..~-y ....~.." CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of For Pete's Sake, L.L.C. for a Conditional Use Permit for a riding academy and horses for hire or boarding on property located at 2428 London Bridge Road (GPIN 2405929310). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. MEETING DATE: January 8,2008 . Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to board up to 10 horses on the property in an existing barn and to operate a riding academy. This parcel was created in 2006, as part of a three (3) lot re-subdivision. The site is provided access via a private road off of London Bridge Road. The private roadway serves the property owners of Hunt Club Farm, a subdivision of large-lot residential, agricultural, and equestrian uses. . Considerations: The applicant's existing facility includes two (2) structures: a two (2)-story barn with 10 stalls, each 12 feet by 12 feet (12' x 12'); and, a 15,000 square foot indoor riding arena. No additional structures are proposed with this request. There are four (4) paddocks and an outdoor Olympic-size Dressage arena. Gravel driveways, parking areas, and an all-weather parking surface and handicap parking spaces will be installed, as required by the Building Code. The subject site is agriculturally zoned as are all of the surrounding parcels, and as such, this request is compatible with adjacent uses. A similar application for horses for hire and horse boarding within a 7,500 square foot pole barn with up to six (6) horses was approved for a 10-acre parcel on the opposite side of the private roadway. The current application was accompanied by three (3) letters of support from adjacent property owners. The traffic that will be generated by this proposal is not anticipated to impact the surrounding properties or the existing private road and accessways, as traffic generated by this use should be equivalent to or only slightly higher than that currently generated. The roadway serving this site does not meet City standards, is narrow, and consists largely of dirt and gravel surface treatment. Ideally, the roadway should be improved to allow access for emergency response vehicles; however, the roadway is privately owned by the property holders in this area. Thus, the applicant is working with the Fire Marshal's Office to develop a Fire Protection Plan to help prevent, suppress and extinguish potential fire hazards. For Pete's Sake, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 The Fire Protection Plan will include, but is not limited to, the installation of monitored smoke detectors; the installation of fire extinguishers; a live-in, on-site barn manager. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the use is compatible with the surrounding area, the applicant is already using the site for equestrian-related purposes, and there was no opposition. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. No more than 15 horses shall be kept on the property at anyone time. 2. All improvements shall be installed as required by the Building Official's Office prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. A Fire Plan, developed specifically for this site, designed to aid in fire prevention, suppression and elimination of potential fire hazards, shall be developed in conjunction with the Fire Marshal's Office, and shall be approved and implemented prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Conditional Use Permit. Such Plan is not meant to supplant any additional recommendations of the Fire Marshal's Office. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department,'\ i\}J City Manager: Q lL ~ O"'<"t. ~ FOR PETE'S SAKE, LLC Agenda Item 8 December 12, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for riding academy and horses for hire and boarding. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 2428 London Bridge Road. GPIN: 24059293100000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 5 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to board up to 10 horses on the property in an existing barn. This parcel was created in 2006, as part of a three (3) lot re-subdivision. The site is provided access via a private road that serves the property owners of Hunt Club Farm, off of London Bridge Road. The applicant's existing facility includes two (2) structures: a two (2) story barn with 10 stalls, each 12 feet by 12 feet (12' x 12'); and, a 15,000 square foot indoor riding arena. No additional structures are proposed with this request. There are four (4) paddocks depicted on the concept plan as well as an outdoor Olympic size Dressage arena, all of which exist on the site. Gravel driveways, parking areas, and an all-weather parking surface and handicap parking spaces will be installed as required by the Building Code. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Equestrian facility SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: . Open field I AG-1 Agricultural District . Equestrian facility I AG-1 Agricultural District . Field, woods I AG-1 Agricultural District . Equestrian facility I AG-1 Agricultural District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The property is located in the Southern Watersheds Management Area. The majority of the site is cleared and contains paddocks, arenas and a barn. FOR PETE'S SAKE Agenda Item 8 Page 1 AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Greater than 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Outdoor Recreational Facilities, under which this use falls for AICUZ purposes, are compatible uses within this AICUZ. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Access to this site is provided through a private road that is shared by residents living on the Hunt Club Farm property. The private road leads to an access point on London Bridge Road. London Bridge Road is a four (4) lane minor suburban arterial. There are currently no CIP projects for this section of London Bridge Road. The MTP indicates a future right-of-way width of 100-feet containing a divided highway with bike path for London Bridge Road. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume London Bridge 20,300 ADT 1 26,00 ADT I (Level of Existing Land Use;.! -50 Road Service "C") - 34,500 ADT ADT 1 (Level of Service "E") Proposed Land Use 3 - 50 ADT Average Dally Trips 2 as defined by 5 acre horse farm 3 as defined by 5 acre horse farm WATER & SEWER: This site is not served by City water and sewer. FIRE PROTECTION: The Fire Department recommends that an approved fire detection system and fire sprinkler system be installed throughout this facility based on the following: [1] The closest water supply for firefighting operations is a public fire hydrant located more than 2,500 feet away from London Bridge Road. This distance exceeds the total length of supply hose carried on two (2) fire engines. [2] Due to the limited water supply carried on fire apparatus (500 gallons), the initial responding units would be out of water in 10 minutes or less. [3] The access road to the facility is over 2,000 feet from London Bridge Road. It is an unimproved roadway consisting of dirt and rock. This roadway is not maintained by the City and could become impassible for extended periods of time during inclement weather such as ice and snow. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Comprehensive Plan: FOR PETE'S SAKE Agenda Item 8 Page 2 I, The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within the Primary Residential Area. Proposed development within the Primary Residential Area should focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area, The proposed Conditional Use Permit is complementary to adjacent agricultural uses within this area. The riding academy is in keeping with the Primary Residential Area principle to protect and maintain open space areas. "Over the long term, the quality of our city's physical environment within the Primary Residential Area will be largely measured by how well we protect and enhance its open spaces. Not only do these areas add to the attractiveness and livability of our suburban neighborhoods, they also have a positive effect on the market value of surrounding properties and, thus, help to advance our city's economic vitality. Significant multiple benefits are derived from this amenity and, as such, it is important for the city to continue providing sufficient resources to ensure an effective, on-going open space preservation and acquisition program in Virginia Beach (page 92)." Evaluation: The subject site is agriculturally zoned as are all of the surrounding parcels, and as such, this request is compatible with adjacent uses and is recommended for approval. A similar application was approved for horses for hire and horse boarding across the lane on a 10-acre parcel for a 7,500 square foot pole barn with up to six (6) horses. The current application contained three (3) letters of support from adjacent property owners. When evaluating a request for horses for hire, Section 241 of the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance states that not more than three (3) riding animals shall be kept for each acre of land. Under this criterion, this property could theoretically support up to 15 horses. The applicant is proposing to board up to 10 horses. Section 241 also requires that all buildings housing animals and all corrals in which animals are kept be at least 100 feet from any property line. The existing barn is depicted to be approximately 90 feet from the closest property line (the southern boundary) and the existing indoor riding ring is as close as 20 feet from the rear property line (the eastern boundary). While both locations comply with the requirements for building setbacks in the Agricultural District, the structures do not meet the 100 foot of separation requirement nor do the existing paddocks/corrals. Staff does not oppose allowing a variance to this requirement, as horses are a common sight in this part of Virginia Beach. In fact, there are several other equestrian operations in the Hunt Club farm community. The traffic that will be generated by this proposal is not anticipated to impact the surrounding properties or the existing road and accessways, as traffic generated by this use should be equivalent to that currently generated. The roadway serving this site does not meet City standards, is narrow, and consists largely of dirt and gravel surface treatment. Ideally, the roadway should be improved to allow access for emergency response vehicles; however, the roadway is privately owned by the property holders in this area. Thus, the applicant is working with the Fire Marshal's Office to develop a Fire Plan to help prevent, suppress and extinguish potential fire hazards. This is not to say that this Plan supplants the recommendations of the Fire Department but is an attempt by the applicant to retrofit the exiting structure in a manner that could have some impact while being economically feasible. The Fire Plan will include, but is not limited to, the installation of monitored smoke detectors; the installation of fire extinguishers; a live-in, on-site barn manager; and the development and implementation of a Fire Protection Plan. CONDITIONS 1. No more than 15 horses shall be kept on the property at anyone time. 2. All improvements shall be installed as required by the Building Official's Office prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, FOR PETE'S SAKE Agenda Item 8 Page 3 3, A Fire Plan, developed specifically for this site, designed to aid in fire prevention, suppression and elimination of potential fire hazards, shall be developed in conjunction with the Fire Marshall's Office, and shall be approved and implemented prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Conditional Use Permit. This plan is not meant to supplant the recommendations of the Fire Marshal's Office. 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. FOR PETE'S SAKE Agenda Item 8 Page 4 ~~I~ I I .' L1 i I ih ,I "I IIi II I a ~~ ~~ - I' I - ~ " II 1-....- I . I ~~' · Lk - 'ru ----- --- ~ <C ----- I!! ------------------ i I ----- -- III : I ~ I I I I I ?- M . : I ~ I I i ~~l ~ II I I II . II~~: : !I I I ii I( I I I 0 I I I 0 N . I r<) I I I I I I w I .....I II M < -- I 0 II 0 U) II N I 0 I N 0 II I I :c 0- II I < 0:: I Cl - - I 0 0 I .- I I i I Ii I~h 0 L() i I 0 EXISTING SITE LAYOUT FOR PETE'S SAKE Agenda Item 8 Page 5 1 10/23/07 MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS Granted (recreation facility) 1 0/22/91 CUP (recreational & amusement facility) Granted 01/28/85 CUP (addition to kennel) Granted 04/12/05 SUBDIVISION VARIANCE Granted 2 06/25/02 CUP horses for hire & boarding) Granted 3 11/09/04 CUP (recreational facility) Granted 04/12/92 CHANGE OF ZONING (AG-2 to B-2) Granted 4 OS/23/00 CUP recreational facility-outdoor) Granted 5 08/25/92 CUP truck rental) Denied ZONING HISTORY FOR PETE'S SAKE Agenda Item 8 Page 6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, 0: other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1 List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members trustees, partners, etc, below (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation partnership firm business, or other unincorporated organization, PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant If the property owner IS a corporation, partnership. firm. business, or other unincorporated organization complete the following 1 Ust the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members. trustees. partners. etc below' (Attach list if necessary) 2 list all busInesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entltl relationship with the applicant (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization ~ & 2 See next page for footnotes Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes _ No t/' If yes what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? Condl~IOl1a use Permll APPllcat,O:"' Page e o! 'C Revlsea 7/3'2007 z o I t ~ iU I I ~ ~ ,~ iF-c ; I I I~ ~ ~ ~ CI'::J ;::::J ~ '0 I t F-c I I ~ Z o U FOR PETE'S SAKE Agenda Item 8 Page 7 z <=> I . ~ U I . ~ o. ~ f--4 ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ <=> I I f--4 I I ~ Z <=> u DISCLOSURE STATEMENT II ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect I to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (AttaGh list if necessary) .:r oh..J e - <;; p../~i.! ora fJ $$<;JL..-;;;r0 1 "Parent-subsidiary relationshi p" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation," See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. Va, Code S 2.2-3101, 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent- subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be con sidered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities: there are common or commingled funds or assets: the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relations hip between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. Va. Code S 2,2-3101 !I CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled fot public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package, The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Planning to photograph and view the site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application Ifi/ /1J-/. /0 Applicant's Signaturf {).I , n ul1l1 , 1.-- i<!1' L LA, Print Name I J Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Conditional Use Permit Apoilcatloo Pagel0oflC' Revised 7:3i2007 FOR PETE'S SAKE Agenda Item 8 Page 8 Item #8 For Pete's Sake, L.LC. Conditional Use Permit 2428 London Bridge Road District 7 Princess Anne December 12, 2007 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The last matter is agenda item 8. It is the application for Pete's Sake, L.L.C. This is an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a riding academy and horses for hire or boarding on property located at 2428 London Bridge Road, and this is in the Princess Anne District. Welcome sir. Mike Kelly: Hi. Janice Anderson: Please state your name. Mike Kelly: Michael Kelly. Janice Anderson: Mr. Kelly, there are three conditions to this application. Have you reviewed those and are they acceptable? Mike Kelly: I have reviewed them. And they are acceptable. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Seeing none, the Chairman has asked Don Horsley to review this for us. Did I catch you? Donald Horsley: Yes. A little bit. I thought this was going to be heard but we will give it a shot. Janice Anderson: Okay. Donald Horsley: This is a Conditional Use Permit for a riding academy and horses for hiring. It is in an agricultural zoned area. There is already an existing barn on the site. There have been some concern about the horses and cars, and I think that has been addressed. There are three conditions on the application and the applicant has said those conditions are satisfactory. The staffhas recommended approval ofthis, and this is something that we encourage in the agricultural areas. Seeing there is no opposition, we recommend that it be put on the consent agenda. Janice Anderson: Thank you Don. That was very nicely done. Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion to approve the following item to be approved on the consent agenda. It is agenda item 8. Item #8 For Pete's Sake, L.L.C. Page 2 Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Dorothy Wood: Second. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve consent agenda item 8, and a second by Dot Wood. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 8 for consent. Barry Knight: Thank you Ed. Map C-8 'CJ' L h Ch h Mop Not to Scole ~o1Je ul eran ure ~/Wl\~~~"'~~~> .lm W ~~~"--"-'.L~~r lr~~~:~' :J,8~.rJJ R-],5 ~ B~/~'~lo . 1fJi €S ~ I O~ ,'LOlA R-75 ~ i:1~\~ ~ -w f'A/J?1ft, "r~ ~t:!!::L})I , ___ ~~~)~ ~ I~ j~ ~~, I ?)~~ ~ ~ '~LBJ.~' ~~. ft · 'MJb ',rmi8. 'i?F581.:J! ~ ~rn,.~ ~ ~~ / '(\ ~ J HI!)~n~~ . ::: ~ ;rn;g& q, ~ ~lL3T A ~r!:Jb~ F-l L--Dr !!i ~I\. c5 S 'bj 8 % L~l'''~~ ~ ::)- ~ :> - /'f2 J'~O -~ r ::a w..;:;&..,~ E'~ \<:0:) ~-W ~!n-l - i ~ ~ ~ ~ \ 1'2: ...;;~." 1 '--~\I --= -= ~~ 0 ..... '..... 1:iM ~...eoI f .IIM ~-= ~ .l(l~~~ 06 :J),r.> / ~ ~o>.: Q"; I~ . f1.. ~~ o .rir\ ~~ ~ I) ~ B. d!; "'li ""'"~ "'Ili! ~ ~-u'.JL~'" >1~ F~-n~TM ~(.8.: 7'~"',' ~ .-107.1. 11/ CF-. ~ CUP - CO!(Jmbi:lrillm ~~.".....~ ~.;~~~~~ :a-"---1' "'::"%' (;;:.2'... _ ~..., }~€--' ~~~ ~\\}. ~.iij ...+,.... . ,.~ .....,..,'..~.....~..:.. ~~~~:-..J CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Hope Lutheran Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a columbarium on property located at 5350 Providence Road (GPIN 1466355165). DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVillE. MEETING DATE: January 8,2008 . Background: A portion of the applicant's property is currently used as a memorial garden, consisting of landscaping, a sitting area, and memorial stones. The applicant is requesting the addition of a columbarium as part of a renovation of the memorial garden area. A columbarium requires a Conditional Use Permit. . Considerations: The applicant is proposing 120 columbarium niches in two (2) separate walls. Each eight (8)-foot wide, six (6)-foot tall, and two (2)-foot thick (8' x 6' x 2') wall will house 60 niches. The columbarium will be located near the rear of site within the existing memorial garden. A metal gate is proposed at the entrance of the garden and the existing hedge surrounding the garden will be thickened. Low lighting will be provided for security purposes. Two (2) benches, pavers, and a memorial stone will also be added to the garden. The columbarium walls will consist of block construction topped with a solid stone "capstone" and faced with brick designed to match the reddish-brown brick on the existing church. The front of each niche will to be granite. The proposed columbarium is appropriately sited on the parcel and designed to blend with the existing church. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. There should be no adverse affects on the adjacent residential neighborhood from this use. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because they concluded the proposed location of the columbarium is appropriate, the use will be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and there was no opposition to the request at the hearing. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: Hope Lutheran Church Page 2 of 2 1. The location of the columbarium shall be limited to that shown on the submitted plan, which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. The columbarium walls shall complement the exterior building materials, in respect to color and material, of the existing church, and shall be substantially in conformance with the drawing entitled, "Columbarium Unit - Hope Lutheran Church" . 3. A certificate or letter of approval shall be obtained from the Virginia Department of Health as to conformity with its regulations, indicating that there is no danger of contamination of groundwater where cremains are scattered. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department/ \ ~ City Manager~ \L .~ V HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 December 12, 2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Leslie Bonilla REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a columbarium. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 5350 Providence Road. GPIN: 1466355165 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 2 - KEMPSVILLE SITE SIZE: 5.75 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow 120 columbarium niches in two (2) separate walls, Each eight (8)- foot wide, six (6)-foot tall, and two (2)-foot thick (8' x 6' x 2') wall will house 60 niches. The columbarium will be located near the rear of site within an existing memorial garden. The memorial garden currently consists of landscaping, a sitting area, and memorial stones. A metal gate is proposed at the entrance of the garden and the existing hedge surrounding the garden will be thickened. Low lighting will be provided for security purposes. Two (2) benches, pavers, and a memorial stone will also be added to the garden. The columbarium walls will consist of block construction covered with a solid stone "capstone" and faced with brick designed to match the reddish-brown brick on the existing church. The front of each niche will to be granite, EXISTING LAND USE: Church with playground SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION . Single-family homes I R-7.5 Residential District . Providence Road . Church I R-7.5 Residential District HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 Page 1 East: West: . Single-familyhomes I R-7.5 Residential District . Church I R-7.5 Residential District . Single-family homes I R-7.5 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The rear quarter of site is mainly wooded. There are no known significant environmental or cultural features. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Providence Road in front of this application is a four-lane divided minor urban arterial. The Master Transportation Plan proposes a divided facility with a bikeway within a 130-foot right-of-way. A reservation of 21 feet may be required during detailed site plan review. No Capital Improvement Program projects are slated for this area. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Providence Road 24,784 ADT 32,700 ADT I (Level of Existing Land Use""- Service "D") I capacity 740 ADT Proposed Land Use 3 - No change in trip generation expected , Average Dally Trips 2 as defined by a church 3as defined by church and a columbarium WATER: This site currently connects to City water. The existing 5/8-inch meter (City ID # 95052799) may be used or upgraded to accommodate the proposed development. There is an existing 20-inch City water transmission main along Providence Road. There is an existing 6-inch City water main along Westover Lane. SEWER: This site currently connects to City sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station 416 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an existing 8-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main to the northeast of the property and along Westover Lane. There is an existing 8-inch gravity sanitary sewer main along the intersection of Providence Road and Old Providence Road. There is an existing 8-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main near the intersection of Gale Drive and Providence Road. HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 Page 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Primary Residential 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. In a general sense, the established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non- residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. Evaluation: The proposed columbarium is appropriately sited on the parcel and designed to blend with the existing church. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The use is also compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. CONDITIONS 1. The location of the columbarium shall be limited to that shown on the submitted plan, which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. The columbarium walls shall complement the exterior building materials, in respect to color and material, of the existing church, and shall be substantially in conformance with the drawing entitled, "Columbarium Unit - Hope Lutheran Church". 3. A certificate or letter of approval shall be required from the Virginia Department of Health as to conformity with its regulations indicating that there is no danger of contamination of water supply where cremains are scattered. 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. HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 Page 3 _,. I .iJt~ -:= I I: g -= : ::~ U -=:='1 It I ;1 _: ~ . I I .= : .::: ~ L 41 Ii p 1 II I I II t1 I I ii, 1ft I n nitih !tlJliUil i~~.f~'~ h of II \ --.. ~~.' ".tr' C".. ...-.~. ftf-'';.''. :- , <., " I' I"'~: ': i . ~. 1. - ~ :J:Lt" i' i~ll !1 ~ ~~ ~~~ fill ~ I~zs ~~~u PROPOSED COLUMBARIUM LOCATION i a- ~ ~~i f , ': I I ~ :. II J 9 tU~ II R~ij \ i ::~l \ -- ~i ~J Ii C""'. t7 ...., q~ j.zr~/A"'~'" --" - ~- --- -- --~~---- -~~-- ~~ PROPOSED SITE PLAN HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 Page 4 ~t""o'fesC\.\ \:'1'0"""' '\-~ ~~lI'(.l.U"'~ \ G~rd.et"l <1 W\ ~ l~-f'e -\0 ~ t\.O~ ~ COU~C.\L, t:'~~ 11 2.c>o~ f . >--\ t..'^^ C) l' \ ~ \ Cs C4.. (' L. n l..0 d \ ~ '. ~) ~ ~ \M-t.\il.~ J ~ Ltc) l d 2 1/ eol ~W\ bUI'tu 1M '/ U tt ,-t., (' c L~ ff-\ C" \) 0 <.: ~ L"", e ~(1l.oA -@, ~~ a;;id) Ct.do.r ,tee. c~ r At. \~ ~ "~~GC' /' ~'~~ p(.l.~ 6{: E'~ ~ I Po..~ @ Y':~;,. ~:yL 17o.\JerS / ~'v ~ '--- i --- '1 ./ "(f".#" / ( ~ ( . / ~ { ~6"6\? ~ ~ ~ ~ (~~~ ' '- ~IC( ItC.h o/llQI V ~(b e: e Po.- +-\... ~ ( le, rc@ ili. ~ 4'f $ 1 ^tee c~ f r-.. ~ ~ W-t~Se. W~~\ G(., CQ. C9- ~ · I ~\<.ke t'\llJ " 6\l ~ ket' t b.t..~o-W 4. ~ee.-~ \1"1 ~~k..4 ~r So. Ct.tJ - @ FIt~, CC>L.uM~ARlvM 4D J.c ~o S Fct te. .) @) S\-oIl\.Q.. k wt~~or lC4w' \ 00 so.. sc..6.t\ers . C0 ~c(6ND COL.. UJJl1, 7 i\-'<.-~ \ J-.J G Co '\ PROPOSED COLUMBARIUM DETAIL HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 Page 5 '- 4 'OD ' ; ~ _. -~. - ,,...._-- _~. '0" 0 D, ;_+ ._~ ~.-- ; I , -r-. - I ! I I .~ co' '0 i _, "I " ,0 1": 'N; I I I t--. lO? VI fW -+- I r I j I I I , ;: !~II ~ ~I ~ 1'\ ~ I ,1'1) '"I I ~ : I I ! I~I I'... ! ~ ~ ! ~~ I ;~~ - ,~~ I '(n! 'I :.~. · u ~. :~ FRONi VIEW /' /, l!J A 5ECTION GRIl.DE' ~ +-~- . i ,,- - .~.._--- _u_______ - I I ~~ ,,' r ,"'"--;. ~ ~~.~;~: <;L"L i 3/;"2.'" 'C' ! I -- r COlUf'4\'6AR\UM UNIT HOP E UITlI E1l. ,,1\1 011..1 RtH . ..~, I " . .' . .... . PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 Page 6 Map C-8 rJ" L h C'L h Mop Not to Scole .cJ.oPe Ul eran nUTe ~/WJ\(~YE1~ ~~~~J.=l~ ~ ~ 'fB/-'--J W~ ~\...::J-~ 0 ~~~~~'G'!:::J A/"--i., 8 R-15 IY'b~~.N 1 I {f'U,Ql~.r(~ ~ fl~N.~ ' ~V'" ~. I~~ tl 17-,,~P:JOO~ j~ 't) ~ IHS I~\\~ ~~-) fAlRf$f'JN'.j~ J" I ~~~~- ~'~ h 1~ In''€~: ~ ..JJ. EJ~.~ ~ ;1,r~~~ ~ L~~~.~ ~ljl~Jjlp~ <e~~ .Q~' r .' ()ii'~~/' ~ /. ~'S C".\~ A @il1ly L 4. ~, J] '~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I ~ go ~ 4:JJ -0; lJ" 003\ c5 S tr:Jto 6 ~,,~' Lp"~ 'I_ ;--~~ ~ _ ~)~ ~ :;> _ ~ IJ 0i02 tJ -.E_~t:J~ _& ~ =-=~ ...~~l3< CJ*....JI,~-.:;;::~C~/.-Jh~i r-.~ ~ <I> ~.-:n -- '\ -- ~ _Ik. -Id Fe f\.J II ~ ~~Q1 Co ~S \~~ ~?I~~~ ~ ~l1-ll ~Ci\'e"' ~ - sO '( - P"\::Jrf ~~..~Jl ~ .\=1l~~uoi ~~ '\olO~V'"f- "'.-- >\~ --l~ 0 0 ~ ~ Cl fJ..A~ / J. ~~'" L.1"" l -i! ~. O~ l:.-.l ~> B ~ ~ ~r. ~ L ~~ ' ~~\\"~ ~~ ~ ~ Bj Ilj CUP - Colwnbarittm # Date Description Action 1 02/11/03 Conditional Use Permit (church addition) Granted 03/22/94 Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) Granted 01/22/91 Conditional Use Permit (church) Granted 05/15/78 Conditional Use Permit (church) Granted 2 07/02/02 Conditional Use Permit (automated carwash to existing Granted fuel sales) 3 11/28/88 Conditional Use Permit (automotive repair) Granted ZONING HISTORY HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 Page 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc, below: (Attach list if necessary) 'S~ ~ ~ t\ (:( c.\. e d . 2, List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entity'! relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) IVDT t1Ppt.' C-+BLf r!I Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWN DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property own r is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, p nership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete e following: 1. List the property owner name folio ed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc, below: ( ach list if necessary) / ,,~ 2. List all businesses that h a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entitl relationship with the ap ,'ant: (Attach list if necessary) ~.' ~ J i' o Check here if tJie property owner is NOT a corporation. partnership, firm, business, or dther unincorporated organization, . 2 '& See next page for footnotes Does an official or employee of th~ .9ity of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes _ No -A If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? CGr'(:I;:'-::"~1 _:",- ?fr!',::! J\:~:\!:r:J':::rl Pi:.:oe :~ c,,: '; ~e",,;s~C .~, .:: ~:~:(: z <=> . I ~ U I I . 1 s:2-c ea F--4 ~ ~ ~I ~ CI':} ~ ~ o I I E--4 I I Q Z o u DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 Page 8 z o I I ~ U I I ~ ~ ~ F-c ~ ~ o. ~ f:"J:} p ~ o I I F-c I I Q Z o u II DISCLOSURE STATEMENT II ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectu ral services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) I~'D 1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. Va. Code S 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent- subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities, Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities. resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities," See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va, Code S 2.2-3101, CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate, I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package, The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Planning to photograph and view the site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application "?A.u .\2. ~~ ~l' A:)pl:canfs Signature\ .J.,~- '. ! ./!/ ' ,"'-" ~;.>~ . :'. --1--." /_-".- ,'-;r, .....:.....-' , --r; ....7 . J - /}' ./ -" , .,. ~-! -/:...-... '- Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) '"Q~..).U. .u..c..r~ ~ie..{.l~C, ._ Print Name -r 'b . ""\ c ..\-.'-.1,_' h 6 "f?, 1 i ' , ~ I, c;,. --,- Print Name c.>-:::~r::'.:(l ;:~ :Js(: r:~'n"::: ''';.! ::>-:(-1~i~.,:- p :~~.;~: 1 '.: d ;,~ :";''2'/'~':': . ~ ,:;-':;:'l)>-:. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 Page 9 YOV:TI-E HOPE ~IUI~I~ OPjE~ PAVLCOl: 1 :il HOPE LUTHERAN.......Church Council & Staff 2007-2008 COUNCIL President: Vice Pres: Secretary: Comptroller: Member: Member: Member: Member: Member: HOPE LVTJ-ERAN CHVRCH 5350 Pro\ idenc:c Road. Virginia Beach. Virginia 23.+64 05/ J 424-4848 . fax (757) 424-7626 Bob Strait 301-7734 Pat Plemmons 474-3695 Kayo Nordholm 495-5618 Jeff Gruetzmacher546-1063 Carroll Bains 495-4386 Kim Behm 496-3375 Rob Caple 671-2095 Marie Nelson 499-0672 Chris Taylor 465-5444 STAFF: Church office: 424-4848 Senior Pastor: R. Mark Nieting Assoc Pastor: Timothy Utton Pastoral Assistant: Janet Swenson Youth Ministry: Linda Muth Education: Carolyn Powell Office Mgr: Martha West Music Ministry Kathy Weiss robert .strait@navy.mil plemmons@cox.net knordholm@msn.com dgruetz@aol.com cdbflynav@cox.net beachbehms@aol.com caple@cavtel.net EYES04U@aol.com Powney4@cox.net Fax: 424-7626 410-1639 mnieting@hotmail.com 687 -8485 PastorTim@hope.hrcoxmail.com 549-7122 gjswen@cox.net 436-7034 cgmuth@cox.net 286-0015 christianed@hope.hrcoxmail.com 285-5419 admin@hope.hrcoxmail.com 495-0326 kathleen.weiss@navy.mil MINISTRY and BOARD CHAIRPERSONS Education Steve Powell 286-1958 Fellowship Rivers Brauer 523-1116 Finance Jim Hammond 361-9161 Property/ Admin Jim Bleam 479-4039 Public Relations Connie Plemmons 474-3695 School Board Linda Hammond 361-9161 Social Ministry Karen Patton 605-2850 Congregational Care Rollie Soderholm471-5530 Stewardship Russell Clarke 420-6337 Worship Lauran Strait 301-7734 Youth Jamie Margaritis 420-5622 npd727@netzero.com riversbrauer@aol.com t j hcpa@verizon.net jmbeam24@cox.net cmplemmons@cox.net I indahammond@verizon.net kpatton@cacadj.com rolsal@verizon.net c1arkeruss@cox.net laurans@hotmail.com jm5933@cox.net DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Agenda Item 7 Page 10 Item #7 Hope Lutheran Church Conditional Use Permit 5350 Providence Road District 2 Kempsville December 12, 2007 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next matter is agenda item 7. This is the application of Hope Lutheran Church. It is an application for Conditional Use Permit for a columbarium on property located at 5350 Providence Road in the Kempsville District. Welcome again Pastor. Reverend Mark Nieting: Thank you Ms. Anderson: It's a privilege to be here on such a special day. Dorothy Wood: Well, thank you Pastor. It's a privilege to have you with us. Reverend Mark Nieting: Absolutely wonderful. That's great. I'm not an attorney. Pastor Nieting representing Hope Lutheran Church. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Pastor, they have three conditions. Have you reviewed those and are those acceptable? Reverend Mark Nieting: I have not seen the three conditions. I haven't seen them. Janice Anderson: Can someone help Pastor out please? Reverend Mark Nieting: Those are absolutely acceptable. Absolutely. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Pastor Mark Nieting: Absolutely acceptable. Janice Anderson: Thank you sir. Is there any objection to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Seeing none, the Chairman has asked Henry Livas to review this one for us. Henry Livas: As previously stated, the applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a columbarium. The applicant would like to allow 120 columbarium niches in two separate walls. The columbarium will be located near the rear of the site within an existing memorial garden. The columbarium walls will consist of block construction covered with a solid stone "capstone" and faced with brick designed to match the reddish-brown brick on the existing church. The proposed columbarium is appropriately Item #7 Hope Lutheran Church Page 2 sited on the parcel and designed to blend with the existing church. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for the area. The use is also compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Therefore, we request that a Conditional Use Permit be granted. Janice Anderson: Thank you Henry. Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion to approve the following item to be approved on the consent agenda. It is agenda item 7. Barry Knight: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Dorothy Wood: Second. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve consent agenda item 7, and a second by Dot Wood. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 7 for consent. - 48- Item V-K.4. PLANNING ITEM # 54547 (Continued) These Ordinances shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Twenty-fzfth of Two Thousand Five Voting: 9-1 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 Abstaining: Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones Council Members Absent: None Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones DISCLOSED and ABSTAINED Pursuant to Conflict of Interests Act J 2.2-3115 (E) re discussion and vote on the acquisition of real property located in APZl that is under development and encroaches upon Naval Air Station Oceana. Vice Mayor Jones is a member of the Board of Directors of Resource Bank and receives more than $10,000 a annually in compensation for serving on the Board, Resource Bank has extended a line of credit to Bishard Development Corporation and Alexander Homes, in partnership to develop property. Bishard Development Corporation owns property in APZl that is under development and encroaches upon Naval Air Station Oceana. Vice Mayor Jones wished to disclose this interest and abstain from discussion and vote on this item. Vice Mayor Jones's letter of October 11, 2005, is hereby made a part of the record. October 25, 2005 II' - 47- Item V-K.4. PLANNING ITEM # 54547 Attorney R. E. Bourdon, represented the applicant Upon motion by Councilman Wood, seconded by Councilman Dyer, City Council ADOPTED Ordinances upon Applications ofS & J, LLC. for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF S &J, L.L.c. FORA CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM B-2 TO CONDITIONAL E-4 Z01051233 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of S & J. L.L. C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District with a Shore Drive Overlay District on property located at 3762 Shore Drive (GPINs 14893879190000; 14893960430000; 1489395071 0000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being of the Primary Residential Area-Shore Drive Corridor, suitable for appropriately located residential and non- residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop 18 multi-famiIy dwellings with 2,400 squarefeet of retail. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE The following condition shall be required: 1. An agreement encompassing proffers shall be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and is hereby made a part of the record. AND, ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF S & J, L.L.C. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS ROJO0534130 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of S & J, L.L. C. for a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings on property located at 3762 Shore Drive (GPINs 14893879190000; 14893960430000;14893950710000) DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE The following condition shall be required: 1. The building elevations must be revised to show a gable end roof in lieu of the gambrel style roof October 25. 2005 M G3 N t k b h B LLC ap - an uc et v t e a,'. M<l" Not to Sc..le ~ TIfCl JI(I.. ~'-11JILn l'iO~ I "':,J')'/,-<i 7q~''-''s" ~ . ~ .~ 1/ 6"""": 'l~ ,1fJ.h,j;,~ ~tl[']bn' I.e.,,"l?'~~~' -':.~. Or , ~ ~ :f. !:2f ~ ~~Q>./~&~." rJ. ,~~~ ~!,...1 ~ 0'0 v (5 a Qt) Y~fi~ ~"/ ?~~j. ;fJ ~1171{O ,~r. I;J~ Ci~~m~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _. tfJ 0'0 -~7I,i~ ~fiJ ~ . '~~~I~ R, ~ft 1W ~ :J'~ ";;{ll'J ;:\ -1': I u,; ~ II lji!)~~th ~ ~lrw~: ~ -Iifmr rl.~, ~ -- ~~f~D \~I ~ CBR? ~ - --- , =.~S ~ r~ ~ - ~ ________ ....., .lJr'" A -)1 ) 5 6 ~ ~ - _ -'\~~~~~,., DJ~ _....... . - ""=' ^ ~/l> -/ ~ .M', I~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ -., ~ .-- . . 14 _ '......, ~L.'~ ~~ (f ~~ - "- (.,0) - "-~ .",~ ~ ... ~ (50), 1,J1 ~ ~ 1':\.." ~'~ ~~ 6 .l.. In..,.... . ~ ~t\ ~\,,~ ~~ 'j 7'f -...uL _)~ ~ ,. "I IN~~, 'f.;.t ?:/!l:J;ry-Ot ~ ~ ~ fR ~ ~ - 3 IL~11Y- --J:-.-.C. ~9J. ,--- IS II rr~LOh.1I ~~(1~'1 ~C7h 1/ (SO; - Shorf' DriVf' District Modification of Conditions ,,~ ,i;~~~~~' ~f: ~ ~." .g, (<:}.. +m ~:i~. :') ~-:.--., ;;,i ::::~~":.~:t ~~ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. for the modification of a request approved by City Council on October 25,2005 (S & J, L.L.C.). Property is located at 3762 Shore Drive and 3707 Stratford Road (GPINs 1489387919; 1489396043; 1489395071). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE. MEETING DATE: January 8,2008 . Background: The site was rezoned from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District with a Shore Drive Overlay District and granted a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings on October 25, 2005. Due to the current decline in the residential market, the applicant now requests to utilize the existing building for interim uses such as retail and an eating and drinking establishment, which will not serve alcohol, will not have live entertainment, and will close at 11 :00 pm. In order to use the existing building and add an eating and drinking establishment to the permitted uses the applicant must modify Proffers 1, 3 and 4 of the 2005 Change of Zoning. Once the market improves, the applicant plans to develop the site with the proposed multi-family project. . Considerations: The applicant's request for an interim use of the property for retail and restaurant uses is acceptable, as the uses are compatible to the surrounding area. Staff, however, remains somewhat concemed with the applicant's desire to maintain the existing access on Shore Drive for this proposed interim use. The proffers approved in 2005 require the entrance on Shore Drive to be closed and access to the site to be provided on Stratford Road. Since safety on Shore Drive is a top priority for the Bayfront Area, the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division desires closure of the existing entrance on Shore Drive as proffered with the 2005 rezoning of the site. There are two primary safety issues: (1) the median break on Shore Drive across from the entrance is designed for Emergency Vehicle Use Only for the Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Squad, and does not have left tum lanes at the median break, and (2) the existing building on the site is approximately 30-feet from the entrance on Shore Drive, and due to the position of the building, there is no opportunity for vehicles to stack on the site while waiting to move off the site. Absent the issue of the Shore Drive access, however, this proposal is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. The Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 exterior building materials reflect the materials used on adjacent commercial uses and within the residential neighborhood adjacent to this property, and will provide an overall aesthetic improvement to this site. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 6-5 to approve this request, as proffered. . Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~,,~ CityManager:~ v...~~ -, · " NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 December 12,2007 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Modification of Proffers of a Conditional Rezoning from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District with a Shore Drive Overlay District approved by the City Council on October 25, 2005 (S & J, L.L.C.) ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located at 3762 Shore Drive GPIN: 14893879190000; 14893960430000; 14893950710000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 4 - BA YSIDE SITE SIZE: 33,976 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The site was rezoned from B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District with a Shore Drive Overlay District and granted a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings on October 25, 2005. The applicant would like to utilize the existing building for interim uses such as retail and an eating and drinking establishment, which will not serve alcohol, will not have live entertainment, and will close at 11 :00 pm. In order to use the existing building and add an eating and drinking establishment to the permitted uses the applicant must modify Proffers 1, 3 and 4. Once the economy improves the applicant plans to develop the site with the proposed multi-family project. The approved Conditional Rezoning has five proffers: PROFFER 1: When the Property is developed, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development of this mixed use site in terms of limited vehicular access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the 'CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF VINTAGE QUAY", dated May 30,2005, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"), shall be substantially adhered to. NANTUCKET BY THE BA V, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 1 PROFFER 2: When the Property is developed, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via one (1) entrance from Stratford Road. PROFFER 3: The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "VINTAGE QUAY Bishard Development Retnauer Design Associates", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials shall be brick and synthetic shake cedar siding, PROFFER 4: There will be no more than eighteen (18) residential units and no less 2400 square feet of enclosed commercial space not utilized for residential purposes, within the building depicted on the Concept Plan. The only commercial uses permitted in the building are: a. retail shops; b. florists, gift shops and stationary stores; c. business studios, offices and clinics; and d. medical and dental offices and clinics, PROFFER 5: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant building and parking area SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: . Duplex and Single-Family Dwellings / R-5R Residential District . Shore Drive . Boat sales and service/ B-2 Community Business District . Design business and Residential / B-2 Community Business District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The majority of the site is developed with impervious cover. There is very little landscaping 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) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Shore NANTUCKET BY THE BA Y, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 2 Drive in front of this site is a four lane divided major urban arterial roadway. It is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 150 foot divided right-of-way with a multi-use trail. According to the Department of Public Works, the right-of-way at this location is sufficient to meet the requirement of the Master Transportation Plan, A right of way reservation/dedication may be required on Stratford Road to upgrade the roadway to current standards. This requirement will be determined during detailed site plan review. The entrance depicted on Shore Drive is aligned with the median crossover for the Ocean Park Rescue Squad Station. Traffic Engineering does not consider this a safe ingress / egress point and cannot approve the entrance on Shore Drive. The existing entrance must be closed and moved further west for these interim uses. Access can also be provided from Stratford Road. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Volume Shore Drive Existing Land Use'" - 211 ADT 35,100 ADT 1 30,700 ADT Proposed Land Use 3 - 274 ADT Average Dally Tnps 2as defined by 18 residential condos and 2,400 s.f. of commercial 3 as defined by a proposed 2,000 square foot restaurant and 400 square feet of retail WATER and SEWER: This site is connected to City water and sewer. Pump station #306, the receiving pump station for this site, has capacity issues and may required system modification. The applicant shall submit a full engineering hydraulic analysis of Pump station #306 and the sanitary sewer collection system to ensure future flows can be accommodated. SCHOOLS: School populations are not affected by the modification. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as being a part of the Primary Residential Area - Shore Drive Corridor. The area of the proposed development falls within the "Mixed Zone" as identified in the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. This portion of Shore Drive possesses a mix of uses, primarily single-family and duplex units, office and commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan generally supports resort type uses including lodging, retail, entertainment, recreational, cultural and other uses in this area. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the submitted proffers except with respect to the entrance on Shore Drive, The existing proffered rezoning depicted the entrance on Shore Drive to be closed and access to the site to be provided on Stratford Road. The proposed interim uses will generate slightly more traffic than the proffered rezoning. Safety on Shore Drive is a top priority for staff, Traffic Engineering is requesting closure of the existing entrance on Shore Drive due to the several safety issues. First the median break on Shore Drive across from the entrance is designed for Emergency Vehicle Use Only for NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 3 the Ocean Park Fire and Rescue Squad, and does not have left turn lanes at the median break. As part of the Shore Drive Capital Improvements Project the median break will be reconfigured to allow only a left turn from the Ocean Park Rescue Squad building. In the interim staff is concerned users of the site will utilize the median break to access the site presenting an unsafe situation since there are no left turn lanes at the median break. The second issue is the location of the existing building on the site. The building is approximately 30-feet from the entrance on Shore Drive, Due to the position of the building there is no opportunity for vehicular stacking on the site, thereby causing another safety issue. Staff met with the applicant to discuss the options for these interim uses. Traffic Engineering offered a solution in the form of closing the existing entrance and installing an entrance farther west on the site. The applicant wants only to install the minimum amount of improvements on the site during the interim use. While a retail use could occupy the site by-right staff believes it is in the best interest of the applicant and the City to accomplish a compromise regarding the entrance. Staff is willing to recommend deferral of on-site improvements such as curb and gutter around the parking areas and off-site improvements such as sidewalks along the rights-of-ways during the interim use of the property. The proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. The Shore Drive Advisory Committee has reviewed the project and offered the following comments: . Please provide sidewalks along Shore Drive; and . Please insure the proposed building modifications are of a neutral color in keeping with adjacent properties. This proposal is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood as well as the business areas. The exterior building materials reflect the materials used on adjacent commercial uses and within the residential neighborhood adjacent to this property. 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," (91 07(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development of this mixed use site in terms of limited vehicular access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the 'CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF VINTAGE QUAY", dated May 30,2005, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered to. PROFFER 2: When the Property is redeveloped, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via one (1) entrance from Stratford Road. NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 4 PROFFER 3: The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "VINTAGE QUAY Bishard Development Retnauer Design Associates", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials shall be brick and synthetic shake cedar siding. PROFFER 4: When the property is redeveloped, there will be no more than eighteen (18) residential units and no less than 2400 square feet of enclosed commercial space not utilized for residential purposes, within the building depicted on the Concept Plan. PROFFER 5: Until the Property is redeveloped, if the existing building is to be utilized for any commercial use it shall be renovated, the exterior of the building shall be upgraded with an earth-tone EIFS exterior and landscaping shall be planted substantially in accordance with the "SOUTH ELEVATION FROM SHORE DRIVE I EAST ELEVATION FROM W. STRATFORD RD. INTERSECTION", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Landscape Elevation"). PROFFER 6: The only commercial uses permitted in the building are: a. retail shops; b. florists, gift shops and stationary stores; c. business studios, offices and clinics; d. medical and dental offices and clinics: and e. an eating and drinking establishment not exceeding 2000 square feet in total floor area; which cannot sell any alcoholic beverages; which cannot have any live entertainment; and which will close daily by no later than 11 :00 PM. PROFFER 7: 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 PROFFER 8: The Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions set forth herein replace and supersede the 2005 Proffers, STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they dictate the exact mix of uses and the level of quality of the project. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated October 30, 2007 and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 5 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 6 - --- i~i .-; ~ j i - i i 1<<..,... 'V '8IIl :JAW~ IIW3XI I:i ... IGl:DS o.lYlcf ~ lCXI18 's-' SL01 .. ........- ]t Iii !tt Isll Iii I I! I&i ,i,-I' Ii! !I ; IP' ~11i! J ~i 6~li gi! ~~~ !s.,~ ~ _ J ! r I ~lya3 iiefft.~ hE! I. HI J ~ i h.DUUd~lI1l2H5i!inIU 5 5 ~ i.~ f J f .J I i ~ ... i 5 I l ;~ I III;~ Ii i I 0 ~ 00.0:>":000... ) ~ ~_ O~. p$,'" L II I! 0 ~ "' @, ED" j !S ~!5 .. . . r ~ a e PROPOSED SITE PLAN NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 7 3 it ~t 'gg ~! 11 li PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 8 Map G-3 antuc et .V t e av. MOD Not to Scola ~1J\01)) (I. ~1"-1l/IL1'1. BcY~"",..d, n::r~,,",-Tt:sIiJ ":/'"'~ ,,- --J!:i!J{r;1}; YR'A7Df ~ "'" ~ e -~'r,f ~rrJDe DQl ,"W_~:..r;;~~ ----" -- ~ ~-.~ JU f1Jf' ,-' ~~4j' ~~<J?' ~",)k) ",u.~~ ~ ~~(S~ I---1J Q!j Il,. . a: ~ ~Q ~ ~ rJ.. 13 ~ [;;J QJ I ~r~ ~ ~ 1-. "6P7^ ~ J ~ 0 ,15'1- ~~~ ~ tI:~;;:~,~'fj ~ ~ _____ ~ 10' ":"f/ !~1iIIo liJ P'" ~i ,'~c...\~I~r ' ~~ ~l- ~t9 y;J!1 U'~ - j 11l~ SD ~ ~ -'~r ....., 'a)"q. I ('~l ') -- ~iEt(TfaJO ~<' - ~ ~l--;::- ~~ ~ rr- .Llr ~), ~ 1i) ~ ~ -I\~'~ '5~~!~~~~~~ ~j7 ~ r- _ ~~~,7~~ &~~~I ._ L ,~D) - ~~ ~;j~ (SO) lK1\ ~ 5 6 = . .. G1~ rr'11 ~ ,",^ ~ ~~ ?~~ ~ ~ ry(/}~ ~ '-.- ./ '"'""JIJI... _ ~,u - V p ~_Qr ~~l' "?II. ~~ ~ l'" rr L~~ ~ ::-::'3tlir ,I~I R~B- .If :'\i;\, ~'.II I ~. . II I~L~ II Jt~ ,W~ r, rl;;tJt2,/ ~~CF,) (:-j~ (St)) 7 --f..- N k b h B LLC (SO) - Shore Drive District Modification of Conditions 1 10/25/05 REZONING from B-2 Business to CONDITIONAL B-4 GRANTED Mixed Use and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for multifamily dwellings 07/01/03 REZONING from B-2 Business to CONDITIONAL B-4 GRANTED Mixed Use and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for multifamily dwellinQs 3 03/26/91 CHANGE TO NONCONFORMING USE DENIED 2 06/08/87 REZONING from R-8 to B-2 (Conditions Pending) GRANTED 4 07/02/02 MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS GRANTED 05/09/00 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for boat sales and service GRANTED 5 04/28/98 REZONING from B-2,R-5D,P-1 to A-18 (PDH2) GRANTED ZONING HISTORY NANTUCKET BY THE SAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 9 z <=> I I r-d c: ~ I I I , ,... I ' ea CI:) z <=> I I f--c I I Q Z c: ~ c: ~ r'T I c:-=~ z c:=~ I I rd c: ~ I I r'T I I I Q <=> ::is !f'fA., ~ DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation. partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) /' Nantucket by the Bay, LLC.: Steven Bishard, Managing Member: John Bishard, Member; Ken Hunt, Member 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entit; relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) 0 Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant, If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business. or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners. etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2, List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entit; relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) 0 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. 1 2 & See next page for footnotes Modlficatloc of Conditions ApplicatIOn Page 10 of 11 Revised 9J1/2004 NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 10 ~ II DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ~ ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C. v MSA, P,C. 1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code 9 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. Va. Code ~ 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. Nantuck~t by t~eBay"L)L.C. ,.r By: ...::..('[c..>>'.. L\..';:,c " ...: /'/, .,,,,;, ' Steven Bishard. Managing Member Applicant's Signature Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Modification of Conditions ApphcaliOn Page 11 of 11 Revised 9/1/2004 z c:~~ I I r · ~~ c: ~ I I . , ~I ~ ~ Z c:=~ I I r · I I Q Z c:~~ c: ~ r-r I C> Z c:=~ I I r I ~ c: ~ I I r-r I I I Q C> :=e NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C. Agenda Item 11 Page 11 Item # 11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Modification of a Request 3762 Shore Drive 3707 Stratford Road District 4 Bayside December 12,2007 REGULAR Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary? Joseph Strange: The next item to be heard is item 11, Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. This is an application of Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. for the modification of request approved by City Council on October 25,2005. The property is located 3762 Shore Drive and 3707 Stratford Road, District 4, Bayside with eight proffers. Barry Knight: Welcome back Eddie. Barry Knight: Thank you again Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, and for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach attorney and I'm representing the applicant. For many decades, this site was the home of a boat sales and a service business, Colley Marine business on Shore Drive. In late 2005, two years ago, the clients that I'm representing today as contract purchasers of this property, which at the time was zoned Unconditional B-2 Commercial, rezoned the property to Conditional B-4 Commercial with proffers and a very beautiful plan for a mixed used condominium with first floor retail and parking. That first floor retail was 2,400 square feet. That rezoning significantly limited the permitted retail on this property from the Unconditional B-2 retail to just those uses listed. If you look on page 2 of the write up proffer number 4, it lists those retail uses that are permitted on the property, retail shops, florist, gift shops, stationary store, business studio, offices and clinics, medical and dental office and clinics. Subsequent to that rezoning, which this Commission approved unanimously and City Council approved, the applicants closed on the property and purchased the property, the Colley Marine closed in 2006. They have proceeded to get site plan and building plan approvals. The point is they have full site plan approval to construct their development. It is called Vintage Quay. They can actually go out and break ground and start construction in a matter of a couple weeks. The problem that we are confronted with is the market issues that we are all familiar with at this point in time. It would not be prudent from a business standpoint for them to go forward and start development today. The Vintage Quay mixed use development approved site plan is good through 2012. That plan involves closing the entrance on Shore Drive. That will happen with that redevelopment of the site. Sidewalks will be put in. That is on the site plan as well. It will be happening with the redevelopment of this site. However, the elimination of the entrance is a problem today, with what we're trying to do, and what this is all about. My clients went in and said, "we need to use this property for a period three years, or it could be four". But somewhere between now and 2012, this redevelopment is going to happen. So, Item #ll Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 2 we're looking at a limited use ofthe property for the current building that is there. So, we can get through this market period. We looked at boat sales. There are a lot of people who want boat sales on this property again. However, the proffers don't permit that. We have been approached by a number of people to do that. We have a tenant under lease for 3,000 square feet in the 4,000 square foot building. I want to point out there is an error in the traffic information in the write up on page 3, where the asterisk are talking about proposed land use using more traffic. The figures are that the current building, which will be refurbished, and that is one of the parts that we're dealing with today, that building has slightly under 4,000 square feet. The retail tenant that we have under lease will occupy 3,000 square feet of that building. And, that we can do by-right. We can put someone else in the other 1,000 square feet on one ofthe other uses by-right. We were approached by a user for an ice cream parlor called McCones. They will occupy 1,000 square feet, just actually under 1,000 square feet, in the building. And, that use is one that everyone we talked to said it would be great. It would be a good use and a good location. We'll be happy to have it. And, that is the reason why we're here, and that is for an ice cream parlor. And, because ofthat fact, we have to come back and modify the proffers to add that one use, which you all see. It is a very specific use. No alcohol. No live entertainment, limited hours of operation, the whole nine yards. And, that is what got us here. Now, the whole idea here is to invest as little as possible, but to upgrade the appearance of the site for this interim use. We've given you nice elevations of how the building's exterior is going to be renovated and how we are going to landscape it. We're going to restripe the parking lot. Those costs alone are in the neighborhood of $50,000. But they could be absorbed, again with the three, maximum four year period we're looking at before we demolish everything and build what we already have approved to be built. The idea that has come forth about closing the entrance, the entrance on Shore Drive, which we have to have for the tenant that we have an unconditional lease on for retail. We cannot do it. It will cost upwards of $50,000 to move to close it and move it to the western part of the site, which again economically makes absolutely no sense for what we are doing here with this interim use. There are a number of issues that we talked about. First of all, Colley Marine operated here with that entrance for many years. People ride through here at 45,50, and 55 mph, which use to be the speed limit here, and I grew up on this street. Now, realistically, we should be looking at even lower speed limits than 45 coming through here, and most of the time that is what we're dealing with. To suggest that it is "unsafe" is basically a symptom of our society. We're deciding things at the lowest common denominator, the worse possible driver. Clearly, today we wouldn't approve a curb cut at this location. But that has been there for decades. It is the best scenario, but it certainly isn't something that is not going to cause catastrophic loss of life. And, it will go away when the property is redeveloped. We do concur with the concerns about the median break, one that wasn't put there by the applicant or the predecessor in title to the Colley Marine. That is there for the rescue squad, the rescue squad and fire department. The fire department has moved. So, it is just the rescue squad. That can be closed tomorrow. We don't have any say so over it and don't have a problem with it. We will be happy for that to happen. Again, with what we're doing, we aren't in any position to invest any money to close it for the city, so the idea of changing the alignment so it eliminates the ability for people to cross over here, we have no dog in that fight, no complaint about that whatsoever. Please do so. Not a problem for us at all. But that is something that the city can do whenever it may wish to do Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 3 so. The utilization of this building for retail florist or any of those things is a matter that we can do by-right, and remember we are only doing this as an interim use. Not because we expect it to be there for more than three years. Again, it could be four, but by 2012 everything that is here is gone and we're building the approved multi unit condominium with retail. So, the other thing that is very clear, and I don't know if I had a hand in the statistics being wrong here. There is no doubt about the fact that 18 residential condominiums and 2,400 square foot of commercial will generate more traffic than 4,000 square feet of commercial that is there today, up which 3,000 will be retail. All this is about is an ice cream parlor. And, that, in our opinion is not going to cause any loss of life. Weare perfectly willing to put up signs and to strips this area so that it is a right-in only and a right-out only. So, there is no traffic coming across. But as long as this is here, the enforcement of that is going to be difficult, but we don't control that. But we have no problem with it being a right- in only and right-out only. The volume of traffic that the uses of this property as proposed is certainly not going to endanger people to the extent that you're dealing with pretty busy people with boats on trailers coming and out of here, although I suspect most of them would have been smart enough and real smart enough to use the access to Stratford for that purpose, but the retail tenant has to have access as part of the lease. The contingent tenant is the ice cream, and that is what we proffered to do with the ice cream parlor. We've spent $50,000 to upgrade the site, but we cannot deal without the entrance on Shore Drive. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, I'm sure that they need the cut in the middle for the rescue probably so they can make a left and right. However, if you want to put a boatyard again, you can use that? Is that correct? ' Eddie Bourdon: As long as it is there. Again, it is up to the city. Dorothy Wood: That is what I was asking. Eddie Bourdon: Yes ma' am. It is up to the city to eliminate this, to put signage up. It is not up to us. Dorothy Wood: But what I'm saying is you wouldn't have to change your entrance if you kept it as boat sales? You can do that? Eddie Bourdon: No. The boat sales are not one of the things that were permitted with the change in the proffers. Dorothy Wood: If you wanted to put something that was then you could. Eddie Bourdon: There is an argument to be made that in 2 years we can try to keep it. We're not looking for argument. We're just trying to find an appropriate interim use. Cool and Eclectic, our friends can go in here by-right. I'll say that and not to be funny, but the point of it is the property can be used for the uses that are in the original proffer as it is. We Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 4 recognize this. My client recognizes this. It is not an attractive site there. They are going to fix it up. But they're doing it with an eye towards the economic realities that this is an interim use. I'm not here to argue with Ric that ideally this goes away. We know it is. It is going away. We're going to take it away. But in the interim use it makes no sense economically for 1,000 square foot ofleased space to spend that kind of money to relocate that entrance. Dorothy Wood: Well, one more question sir. If the real estate market turns around next year, I think that everyone would be happy, then you might go on and do the project. It might not wait four years. Eddie Bourdon: No. Three years is the likeliest scenario. It would require, which I understand it and I didn't negotiate it, but there are provisions in the leases for buying out the leases, but at the end of three years then it wouldn't cost us anything for us lease it and just redevelop the site. Barry Knight: Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: Mr. Bourdon? So, the building itself is about 4,000 square feet. Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir. David Redmond: 1,000 feet is what? Ice cream parlor? Eddie Bourdon: McCone's Ice Cream Parlor. David Redmond: What is the other 3,000 square feet? Eddie Bourdon: It is a retail use. David Redmond: What sort of retail use? Eddie Bourdon: I apologize. It is a children's apparel, children's retail store. David Redmond: Okay. So there will be children there? Eddie Bourdon: There won't be unless they drive. It will be their parents that will be. David Redmond: You have to try them on unless you bring a doll. I would think you would need to try them on the children. How many free parking spaces are available on that site? Do you know? Eddie Bourdon: It is going to be restriped. I'm not sure that we know the total number of parking spaces. There is more parking there then is necessary. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 5 David Redmond: The reason why I'm asking is because I understand your point about Colley Marine. The difference, however in my view is a boat dealership is a very low volume, very high profit type of business. An ice cream parlor is quite the opposite. There is only so much profit to be made on a $2.00 cone of ice cream. And, the purpose of that is to generate as much traffic as possible. So, Ric? Where is Ric? Hi Ric. Can you come up for a second? Ric Lowman: Sure. David Redmond: If you would, speak a little bit to what the traffic volumes are in that roadway? I don't want to opinion out all of this stuff if you don't have your notes with you, but the write up says the capacity is about 30,000 cars and about 35,000 cars are on it today. Ric Lowman: That number is correct. Barry Knight: Identify yourself for the record. Ric Lowman: I'm sorry. Ric Lowman, City of Virginia Beach Traffic Engineering. That number is correct. The 35,000 vehicles per day, so, it is a fair assumption to say that Shore Drive is at or over capacity. And again, the 35,000 is not seasonable adjusted. So, we do deal with seasonal variations on Shore Drive. Do you want me to answer the question that you brought up about the safety? David Redmond: Yes. Please. Ric Lowman: The entrance as it exists right now would not be approved. If that came in today to us as an entrance for a retail facility that facility wouldn't be approved, I guess for a number of reasons. The first issue as he was discussing was the median opening. Again, it is not their fault that the median opening is there. And, there are signs there that say no left turns. It is emergency use only, but that is not going to stop anybody especially if they're already heading that way and they have nothing else to do except to turn. So, in speeds on the roadway are of high speeds. The speed limit is 45 mph, but speed studies have shown that it is a little bit higher then that just ambient conditions on Shore Drive. But, the other issue, and again this is something that I mentioned that this entrance wouldn't be approved if it came into day for any sort of facility, is that the building is 30 feet from the face of the roadway. We require 30 feet for just entrance area of radius to bring cars in safely. Not to mention a building being 30 foot from the roadway, so that is part of the Public Works standards. We have real issues with interaction of cars coming off of Shore Drive at somewhat high speeds because there is no turning area. You have to be going pretty slow when you come in there, or you're going to hit the building. David Redmond: Thank you. Ric Lowman: Sure. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 6 Barry Knight: Mr. Redmond? You have the floor. Do you want to ask Mr. Bourdon's some follow questions? David Redmond: I invite Mr. Bourdon to address that ifhe wants. Fair is fair. This question is for you Mr. Bourdon. It appears to me that there are three entry points into that property. Is there something magical about that? Eddie Bourdon: Let's start with that, and I'll go back to the idea that people are going at high rates of speed. There are entrances on Stratford Road. Our retail tenant requires access from Shore Drive. Bottom line! From a standpoint of their perspective, and I think it would be the perspective of many, but not all. Obviously, everybody could disagree that access is crucial to the success of that business at that location. The entrances on Stratford are there. They will remain. With the redevelopment there will be one entrance on Stratford and that will be it. The traffic on Shore Drive? The ULI Study recommended, if I'm not mistaken that speed limits on this part of Shore Drive should be reduced. It should be a pedestrian friendly area with low speed limits, and that is what I think the community wants to see in this location as well. The reality is that there is some diversion versus traffic engineering wanting to get as many cars through here as fast as possible because we don't have Old Donation Parkway and Shore Drive is a major east/west corridor. So, we got that problem that we always deal with on Shore Drive and always deal with in this particular area of Shore Drive, but as one who travels that portion of Shore Drive all of his life, and it is an area, if you're going through there at 45 mph, it is late at night or at times when this facility isnot open for business. I totally disagree with the idea that this is unsafe scenario because the building is 30 feet back from the entrance. It is not an optimal situation sure. But it is back to what I initially said it is designing for the lowest common denominator, drivers who are not paying attention to what they're doing. And that is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with that. But we elevate it when we start talking about how unsafe things are. The reality is that it has been there for decades for a retail business including service of boats, and is it optima? No. Is it going to cause loss oflife for this interim use of retail and ice cream parlor? We would suggest that it will not. And, people will use the rear entrances to come out and to get to the median break. I will not argue at all about the fact that this median break should go away. That to me is a dangerous scenario. A right-in and a right-out here, I don't buy that it is a "dangerous" scenario. People trying to cut across and go eastbound on Shore Drive. There is a problem. That goes away with this going away. You come out here to this major intersection and you take your left and go across. Again, it is not any disrespect to Rick, but he and I have talked about it a length. They are looking to try to get the best possible scenario. Ifwe were redeveloping the property, that exactly what you would get but for the interim use, the cost involved it's just economically makes zero sense. That is where we are. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions? Mr. Livas and then Mr. Horsley. Henry Livas: Yes. You keep mentioning the lease restrictions that require an access off of Shore Drive. Does it require access at that specific location or anywhere off of Shore Drive? Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 7 Eddie Bourdon: It requires anywhere on Shore Drive, to relocate the entrance would cost up to $50,000. And for a three year lease, there is no way you can re-coop that cost. Henry Livas: But that is the only disadvantage in moving the entrance? Eddie Bourdon: The other disadvantages is that you spend $50,000 to close an entrance, put a new entrance in, and then you turnaround in three years and eliminate both entrances. So, in multiple ways it makes no sense as we have the right to use the property with that entrance for the retail uses, and the only thing that we can't do is the ice cream. So, the issue comes down is to the ice cream going to cause grave danger to the public versus using it for 1,000 square feet because three-fourths of it is going to be used for retail under the proposal or otherwise it all goes to retail. That is what it boils down too. But moving it, again, great idea if we're doing it long term but we are. Not to dispute, it would be better to move it but it just doesn't make sense in this scenario. Barry Knight: Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: I think you just answered my question. You can do everything you want to do except for the ice cream parlor like it is. You wouldn't even have to jump for us. The only reason you come before us is for the ice cream parlor because that is not in the proffers. Eddie Bourdon: Correct. And, coming before you, and not that we wouldn't do everything that is in the proffers in terms of redoing the exterior, the appearance of the building, the landscaping. I wouldn't suggest that these people wouldn't do that because they are long term residents of our city. They would do that. But, that is the only reason why we are here. And, we're doing a lot of other things. This is not rebutting staff. It has been a great process with staff. They've helped us in every way. They understand what we're trying to do and what we're trying to accomplish. Donald Horsley: So, we if don't approve this you will just try to extend the retail? Eddie Bourdon: If City Council doesn't approve the entrance, that's right, then the building will be refurbished and the other 1,000 square feet will be used for another retail. Donald Horsley: Some type of retail. So, you will still have the entrance there. Eddie Bourdon: Correct. That is correct. Again, it is not trying to be difficult. It is just pure simple economic bottom line. This is not a long term investment in this particular use of this property. Barry Knight: Mr. Bernas and then Mr. Henley. Jay Bernas: Clear something up for me. Eventually, you're going to have one entrance on Stratford Road. And, you're going to have retail in that location, so that retail is going to have to survive with that entrance on Stratford Road. Now, if you close the entrance and you Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 8 pay for the improvements along Shore Drive, and just build that entrance for Stratford Road, you wouldn't be losing any money. You would just be pre-building those improvements in the right-of-way. Eddie Bourdon: You can't do that because of the other sub-surface improvements that have to be made. And, the other thing would be the retail, Jay, on the mixed use building is right here. Okay. It is not back over here. The retail is right smack on the comer. But you get a four-story building, and then your retail component is sitting right in this comer, so, your visibility, which is part of your access your visibility, and I'm not a real estate person but that is everything you hear, but because that retail is here on the east end of that building, right in the comer of the building, people come out will see it. The signage is right there so it is easy, and as most of you have already recognized to pull in here and go like this. But the retail here is hidden behind this part of the building and that is part of the problem. You need a sign out here, which we will need to have to let people know that the retail is there. We're dealing with the building we're dealing with. We're not tearing it down. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley? Al Henley: Eddie, on the west side, I believe that used to the old storage for boats and so forth. What would that area be used for? Would there be permanent parking? Eddie Bourdon: I don't believe that we will need to use it for parking. We have ample parking otherwise, but it is potentially an area that we would be using for parking if we need it. I don't believe we need it. Al Henley: Initially, I personally think that entrance should be closed. But, however, in order to help your clients out, and I hate to see that they lose this lease, in order to help them out would it be agreeable, and I'm going to ask staff as well, if this particular entrance rather than we move it, and I understand the expense of ripping that out, closing up, putting in curbing gutter and landscaping and whatever in there but also eliminating the proposed entrance on Shore Drive to be relocated, which your not serving any purpose, and you're going to close one. What is another 50 feet? If the entrance as we know it today is barricaded offwith say guardrail, and temporary closed off, because we know sooner or later that is going to happen anyway. And, that will eliminate the problem of any rear end collisions and the safety issues that we've discussed. And, that way the customers coming off of Stratford would come in and make a circle where they can use all of that parking in the front, restripe those areas for additional parking. You already said it has more parking than needed. But I was just trying to think and help your clients out. As coming in would be a circle. One entrance in and of course back out on Stratford. Would that help the situation? Eddie Bourdon: I just want to make sure I understand what you're asking. Make it right-in only and no exit? Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 9 Al Henley: No. Put a barricade across that entrance. Barricade if off completely. Therefore you are eliminating the expense of tearing that entrance out by your client, and replacing it with curbing gutter because we all know that entrance has to go away. Eddie Bourdon: I'm sorry. You're saying eliminate the entrance on Shore Drive? Al Henley: Right. Eddie Bourdon: Okay. The primary reason is we can't do that. I'm sorry if! didn't make that clear. The lease on the 3,000 square feet ofretail requires that we have an entrance on Shore Drive. So, that lease, which is our primary lease is paying 80 percent of the rent goes away without the entrance on Shore Drive. Al Henley: Who is requiring that lease? Is it your client or is the owner of the property? Eddie Bourdon: We have leased 3,000 square feet of retail, signed executed lease. That is a part of their lease. Al Henley: But you said ice cream parlor. Eddie Bourdon: That is the retail. Al Henley: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: So, the ice cream parlor came in second. We were already in the process of going forward with the retail and they wanted it for an ice cream parlor. We approached the staff. What do you all think about this? And, to a person it is a good use and the people on Shore Drive. No one had a problem with the use. Then we started going through this process and then this idea. Correct me. Again, I am not arguing that anybody did anything they shouldn't have done by doing their jobs, we don't want that entrance because now we can say we don't like that entrance because we're doing a change. So, that is why we're here and we can't do that. Secondly, personally, you got more experience then I probably at this Mr. Henley, but I still think as long as that curb cut is there with some kind of a barricade, you still run the risk of people who have seen the curb cut and putting on their brakes, and trying to turn in there and realize they can't get in there. So, but I don't think we get to that point. We have to have the entrance on Shore Drive for our primary tenant. Al Henley: Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange has a question? Joseph Strange: Would the lease work if you had a right-in but no exit out? Eddie Bourdon: That is what I thought Mr. Henley was asking. I'm going to have to talk to my client. What we have talked about and what my client's have talked about yesterday was Item #ll Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 10 staff was doing this, and I think I mentioned this but it is right-in only and right-out only. I don't know ifthere is a concern about the right-out. I think the concern was about the right- in. I don't know the answer to that question. I'll have to ask my clients. We can talk about that, and I think you got one other thing on the agenda, and I don't want to get behind that. We can talk about that for a moment or two. If you would like, and I don't think we can do that, but I'm not saying we can't. Joseph Strange: I don't know if you should talk about it. I was just throwing it out there. Eddie Bourdon: I thought that what Mr. Henley was talking about. Joseph Strange: Those were just my comments. Eddie Bourdon: I think the main issue is this. I truly do. If you eliminate what you think is the big danger, I think that is the primary cause of that traffic crossing over. Joseph Strange: I was just thinking that maybe a right-in but no right-out would keep it from stacking up a little bit. Eddie Bourdon: On site. Joseph Strange: Yes, on site. It wouldn't stack up there and that might help the situation a little. Eddie Bourdon: My clients are here and they are hearing this conversation. So, I will go back and speak to them. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Bourdon at this time? Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: Could you repeat that? Is that just a right-in and no right-out? Eddie Bourdon: That is what Mr. Strange has suggested, that we do just a right-in into the site with no exit onto Shore Drive from the site. Dorothy Wood: You mean you are going to put a sign? Eddie Bourdon: The same thing you would do for a right-inlright-out. You will have to strip the area. Striping isn't very expensive, but you put signage that would prohibit the turn out of the site, which is a little bit easier to police then the median break, but still the perfect solution is obviously that once it is redeveloped and there is no entrance at all. Barry Knight: Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: So that would satisfy both tenants, the ice cream parlor and the retail use? Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 11 Eddie Bourdon: Well, the ice cream parlor isn't an issue as far as the access to Shore Drive. Kathy Katsias: Right. You wanted to cuts on Shore Drive originally. Eddie Bourdon: Well, no ma'am. Kathy Katsias: The City. Okay. Eddie Bourdon: No. The city is trying to be helpful suggesting closing this one and putting a new one to the west. We were never asking for anything on Shore Drive. Again, it was constructive, but it doesn't fit in this scenario that we're facing. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley? Do you have another question? Al Henley: It was my understanding that staff was the reason for the right turn in that was really the safety issue rather then a right turn out. Eddie Bourdon: I'm not going to speak for Ric. You can ask Ric. Their concern is with the crossover, but they realized that is not our issue. They are also concerned with the crossover so people coming out and going eastbound out of our site. We have, again no aversion to doing whatever we can do on our site to limit or keep that from taking place. The issue of people of slowing down and turning right into the property is one that we cannot address, and with this circumstance and the ice cream parlor is what we're talking about in tradeoff. Barry Knight: Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: With all due respect. My concern is that I don't see what you lead any of us to believe that some alternative scheme, right-inlright-out would be any easier to enforce then u-turns at that median break. You can stripe however you like. People are going to in and out of that however they feel like it unless you got a cop standing out there making them stop. It is not going to make any practical difference on that today. Requiring someone to take a right out from the other side, from my view, is simply not going to be effective. People want to come from the other side. They're just going to come from the other side. Eddie Bourdon: I don't think your traffic engineering department has that level of criticism with respect to people's driving. I think, that if you put the signs up, and you put the striping up, the traffic engineering folks have acknowledged that it would be helpful. It would be beneficial. To say it would solve all and people will ignore it, I'm not saying that. But to suggest that everyone will, which I don't know if that is what you were intending. David Redmond: No. No. I wasn't. Not everyone makes a u-turn where they're not suppose to, at that median break either, but some do, and there are going to be plenty of folks who simply will ignore the signs and drive however they want in and out of it. And, so, I think to suggest that somehow that would solve the problem, I think that concerns the staff, and concerns me, and concerns some others, I just don't know if that is an effective solution. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 12 Eddie Bourdon: The median break, once again isn't this applicant's concern. David Redmond: I know. Barry Knight: Are there any more questions at this time. Thank you. I'll open it up for discussion among the Commission members. Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: Was Mr. Bourdon going to ask about that right-in? Barry Knight: It may be a little premature. Maybe he could ask him now. We can discuss it. That is an option that we want to present to him we have already discussed it. Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Ric, do you mind? Ric Lowman: Sure. Janice Anderson: Thanks. Ric Lowman: Ric Lowman, City of Virginia Beach Traffic Engineering. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Mr. Bourdon said that he would provide some striping, and I want to understand that your main concern is the right-in to his property that is already there. Ric Lowman: Yes ma' am. Janice Anderson: Is it because the building is so short and that you only have 30 feet or is it because of the curb cut? Ric Lowman: It is because the building is so close. If the building was 60 feet back and you could have an aisle between where cars pull off and where cars are going to be going around the building, then it would be a totally different issue. We have those drive aisles in front of building all over the place but there is no drive aisle. Basically, the room in front of the building is suppose to be used as the acceleration for cars coming off in the drive aisle, and those two uses just don't make sense. I don't want to get down in the weeds of the operation of the facility but if you have a car coming across going from one side to the other, again trying to exit onto Stratford Road, any kind of circulation there isn't going to work if you have a car coming off of Shore Drive because the building is right there. Janice Anderson: Because the building is right there, but ifhe did some striping. Like right now there is no striping so when you come in you don't know where to go. You can right or left. But if there was designated striping like I think he is talking about to move you off, would that help? Ric Lowman: Again, I'm just throwing operations out. You're basically making a 180 degree turn if you're going to follow that and go around. I don't know if we have the aerial Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 13 picture. If you strip it to do that, it is 180 degree turn. If they're saying that they'll strip this and you can't go out, then everyone is going to be forced around the back of the building because there just isn't any room in there to take this parking and bring it across to that exit. It just doesn't work. You have too much going on in that 30 foot with a fixed object. The building is not going to give. Maybe it will give a little bit. Janice Anderson: I guess there is no flow behind the building. There is no circulation all around? Ric Lowman: It doesn't look like there is much. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon? Wait a second. We're going to keep Mr. Lowman going. Ms. Anderson, do you have any more questions for Mr. Lowman? Janice Anderson: That was just my concern. Because I kind of agree that the curb cut causes some problems there, which I don't think we can put on the land owner. So, I was trying to see if we could somehow, with striping or some kind of solution to bring it in where that right turn can come in safely. I would like to see if we could do that instead of requiring him, to close that and open another one just for a temporary basis when it is going to be closed eventually. You don't see any? Ric Lowman: We made a comment, and I'm not going to tell that it is a grave situation, the use of it. I will tell you that it is unsafe. So, I want to strike a happy medium. I don't want to portray it as a grave situation. It is an unsafe situation and that we certainly wouldn't have preferred. We wouldn't recommend it to you as traffic engineers, as professional engineers, I would not recommend it. I'm not claiming that it is a grave situation. I'm trying to get that deep into it. Janice Anderson: I see exactly what you're saying. The building is too close. Barry knight: Mr. Bernas? Did you have your hand up? Jay Bernas: For discussion. Barry Knight: Fine. Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: Yeah. Ric? You're okay. Thank you though. Barry Knight: Hold up a second. Did you have a question of Mr. Lowman? Joseph Strange: Yes. I did have a question. Barry Knight: Ric? Mr. Strange would like to talk to you again. And, Mr. Lowman is still up. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 14 Joseph Strange: I guess the question I have is if you had a right-in no right-out, and traffic would go in and then go to the left and go around the building, would that help prevent some of the stack up that you're concerned about out onto Shore Drive. I mean, go around to the left there. Ric Lowman: If they had to come and go all the way around and there was no chance for a car to come from this side of the lot to this side of the lot, then that would be better. I would say it would be better. Again, but there better be some pretty positive improvements to make sure that nobody could come this way because if you do, then you could be in for more trouble because now you're encouraging people to pull off and go left around the building and they're not expecting a head on car to come around. Joseph Strange: Of course, I'm not a traffic engineer, but I was thinking that most of the traffic during the summertime would be for people that was going to the ice cream parlor, which they would go all around the building anyhow if they had to and come back around to there. You see, that would prevent any kind of pile up right there at the entrance. We're trying to look for a temporary solution. Ric Lowman: Sure. Joseph Strange: Then they would have to exit back out to Stratford Road. Ric Lowman: It would require some very positive reinforcement of nobody coming from the west because again signs are not positive reinforcement. Striping is not positive reinforcement. Joseph Strange: How about the little parking bumpers that you stick out so people pull up to a little parking bumper. Ric Lowman: We could get down to the details if that is what they decided to do. We can try to work it best as we could but it is going to be expensive for them. Joseph Strange: If they did that, would it be a positive situation? Ric Lowman: It would have to be a positive. Joseph Strange: You say that would at least help the situation. Ric Lowman: It would help the situation. Let me just add this. We said that moving it to the west would help all situations. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Lowman? Okay. Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: So, anybody coming west to go to the ice cream parlor would enter and would make a left on Stratford and come in. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 15 Ric Lowman: Yes ma'am. Kathy Katsias: So, would there not be a bottle neck with the people exiting and the people entering on Stratford? Wouldn't that create more problems? Ric Lowman: No. Not if these entrances were wide enough. And there are two of them. Kathy Katsias: Okay. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions of Mr. Lowman? Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bourdon? We will allow you to come back. Is there something that you like to add? Hold on. We have a question from Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: I still have some points that I want to make. First off, I can look at that aerial and look at the plan, and I don't need to really know the traffic count or the median. I'm not so really concerned about the median break because I think probably the vast majority of people are, as Mr. Bourdon suggests, are law abiding and will abide by the no u- turn sign. There are a lot of cars traveling on that corridor every single day. And some of them at pretty healthy speeds, because I travel it almost every day but not every day. And, my concern is that if you pull in to that entrance on Shore Drive as close as it is to that building, particularly when you have cars parked there. If there are no cars parked there in this aerial. An ice cream shop and retail shop necessarily generate traffic. That is what they are intended to do. That would be the purpose of having all the entrances to this property at is only three-quarters of an acre by my count. And, I do not believe it is our responsibility in land use planning to support the applicant's lease negotiations. It does not matter to me that they negotiated an entranceway on Shore Drive. Go back and renegotiate. Weare not responsible for any retail lease. I can look at that, and to me it appears unsafe. And, whether they negotiated an entrance off of Shore Drive or not in lease negotiation, I just don't see that as our responsibility. I don't see why the entrance points to the three-quarter acre establishment like this one would work where they are off of Stratford. Now, can the applicant avail himself with some other type of retail use? Sure. By-right? Sure. Keep that entrance off of Shore Drive, sure? It probably wouldn't generate as much traffic as the ice cream parlor, which is why we are where we are. I'm always the guy who says we got to stop running around trying to shut down entrances to things. It irritates me as a consumer. I can never get anywhere sometimes. But you can get to this site. There are a few places that have kinds of issues with regards to safety that Shore Drive does. Ifhe wants to avail himself to some other use, we can't make him close it until he does this redevelopment. This redevelopment will end up getting closed up anyway, and there was a reason why that was included in the original proffers. So, I'm going to introduce a motion to support the application with the staffs recommendation that the entrance off of Shore Drive be closed. Barry Knight: Thank you Mr. Redmond. Mr. Bourdon, do you have something you care to add? Item #ll Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 16 Eddie Bourdon: I just wanted to address the issue of it being a right-in only scenario. The lease for the retail space was executed because the access to Shore Drive is there, and it is perfectly permitted for the retail use. So, it is not a situation trying to bailout anybody's lease issue that was leased to them before we were approached by the ice cream parlor, and the access there is perfectly permissible and will stay there for the retail use. I think that Dave understands that but I just wanted to make sure that I was clear. Weare willing to explore with staff between here and Council the potential for this being right-in and right-out only coming this direction, although it is not a 180 turn, it is certainly more than a 90 degree turn. Coming this way would be a pretty simple movement. More than likely the only impediment to that is that this area back here is not paved to standards, and having traffic go through here, which is another entrance back here on Stratford does make sense on first flush with having to repave this area for this interim use is probably again, economically going to make it problematic, but we may be able to work something out in that regard between here and Council. We will explore that with the staff in that interim period. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley? Al Henley: I have another question for you. I'm still trying to work something out for you. Eddie Bourdon: I appreciate everybody spending so much time on this one on a beautiful afternoon. Al Henley: This is going to be my last question for comment. So, here it goes. There seems to be a lot of concern because of the entrance that is there. I realize that it has been there for decades. But where we are going right now doesn't look too good. My last comment is the radius on the extreme east side. If that radius was tom out, and maybe a new question because it is going to require some money to do this, take that radius right back, tear it out, and move it back say 20-25 feet, and staffwill work the details out. The radius on the west side is in other words, shift that whole entrance over. Therefore, because that entrance is lined up perfectly and it is only 30 feet from the entrance of the building, if that entrance was shifted, it would eliminate that 180 turn off of Shore Drive and allow people quickly to exit Shore Drive and get into the property. I'm not sure if that is going to be cost prohibited or it is a workable solution but whether the entrance can still be there, just shift it over. I would be willing to support that, and then the details would be worked out by the staff. Eddie Bourdon: Let me just say this. This is not going to be an entrance. There is going to be parking in this area. And, I do absolutely understand completely the logic. It is absolutely accurate. It would be preferable, and we are willing to explore it between here and Council, but I think the cost of having to redo this curbing, and extend that is basically going to be the same as putting in a new entrance. So, I guess my common sense, and I may be wrong about that, but I think that is probably going to go be cost prohibited, and so at the end of the day, we are and what it boils down to is the entrance stays for retail use of the entrance, and that is where it is staying, and there be the ice cream parlor. That is what it really boils down to. If the feeling is, and again, I think it may work out. We may be able to do the right-in only but there are some issues and costs that we don't have, so I can't sit here and tell you yes, we can Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 17 do that but there might be a potential way to make that work, which everything that we're doing here is incrementally trying to make the situation somewhat safer. But I begin to start with a whole point is I don't think anything out there is "unsafe". It is all how we start that discussion from where we begin it. I know you spent a lot oftime. We're not going to expect to get a full resolution today but at least everyone understands. Barry Knight: Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Bernas has a question. Jay Bernas: On that point, are you interested having this deferred so you can clean it up some? Eddie Bourdon: No. You got specific proffers. We need to move it on to City Council. We will work with staff between now and try to see ifthere are any other tweaks we can make. Every step that we've done so far we are doing things, and Ric and I talked that we are making things safer but optimal? I don't think we can get to that point with staff because staffs review is that it just needs to be closed. All we can do is just to make it better. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Bourdon? Thank you. I'll open it back for discussion. Mr. Bernas first. Jay Bernas: In general, I don't think anyone has an issue with the use. It is really about the entrance. For me, I'm not willing to sacrifice what our traffic engineer is telling us that they would not approve this if this came up for a site plan. It is a safety issue. If they're not going to approve it and they are saying there is a safety issue on Shore Drive where there are a number of other safety issues, I don't think it would be prudent for us to save the developer $50,000 in lieu of public safety. I would have been more agreeable to possibly deferring this. I mean there were a lot of good ideas, I think, thrown out here, but with the way the application is now, it is difficult for me to vote in favor with the entrance. I agree with staffs recommendation that the entrance be moved farther west and closing this entrance but as it stands now, I just don't feel like that saving them $50,000 versus public safety really is a good deal. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: Well, the way that I see it is the fact that if we disapprove this application as submitted that cut is going to stay there, and they are going to have retail it anyway. It is not going to change a thing from what it is right now. It is going to be there and there is not anything that we or anybody else can do about it. So, if we disapprove the application as submitted, then we are just approving for them to use it as retail with the curb cut the way it is. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it. So, if we disapprove this, that curb cut is going to stay. And they are going to use it as retail. They are just going to do away with the ice cream parlor. Barry Knight: I don't think it's a point of us disapproving it Mr. Crabtree. I think it's the point of us approving as it is proffered, which means that curb cut goes away or we approve with a recommendation to revisit the proffer between now and Council. I believe those are Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 18 the two options that we are looking right now. Is there any other discussion? I'm sorry. Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve the application with the staffs recommendation to close the entrance on Shore Drive and recommend that the applicant, and thank you for your willingness to pursue this, that the applicant meet with staff on and review the various options with regard to that entrance before Council. Barry Knight: There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Mr. Livas? Henry Livas: A point of clarification. Does that mean not give them any entrance off of Shore Drive? You said close. David Redmond: Close the entrance off of Shore Drive. Henry Livas: Without an option of slipping down to another location? David Redmond: Correct. I am making a motion that we approve the application with the staffs recommendation that the entrance on Shore Drive be closed. Take it to Council what they can come up with staff. And, that would be our recommendation. Barry Knight: There is a motion on the floor. The Chairman is looking for a second. Is there a second to Mr. Redmond's motion to approve the application as it is presented to us? Mr. Bernas? Do you second it? Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve and it was second. I'll open it up for discussion. Donald Horsley: I have one question of either Jack or Karen or somebody. Barry Knight: Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: What can he do on this retail? What can he sell? Every thing but ice cream? Karen Lasley: An ice cream parlor is considered a restaurant. That is why he can't do that by-right. But he could do any type of retail. Donald Horsley: He can have a store there and he can sell Dixie cups where he is not serving ice cream so as long as it is not a sit down parlor? Karen Lasley: Yes. The retail is very broad. Donald Horsley: That is what I thought. But it is not quite broad enough. Barry Knight: Ms. Anderson? Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 19 Janice Anderson: Thank you. My comment, I think is probably coming along, and I have agreement with what Jay said earlier. I think the only request here is to add an eating and drinking establishment that is not going to sell alcohol. And, the main thing is whether that is an agreeable use or a compatible use around the neighborhood because it is limited to what the prior application where it should just be retail stores. I believe that a restaurant or something like an ice cream store would be compatible next to a residential area. The issue with the entrance, I think is because of the existing building that we have there, and I'm not in agreement to have them move it 50 feet down just for a temporary time, when they agree to close it totally when they redevelop the site. What I would like to see, and I would make a motion to go ahead and approve it with the addition of the eating and drinking establishment, and I would approve the entrance as is for a temporary use of not more than three years, but I would like to see some type of striping. I don't have that in front of me. And, that is what makes me kind of anxious. I would like that worked out between now and Council because that is one thing that Jay had suggested maybe a deferral so that we can like it. I, rather Planning try to work out the striping or where the cars are going to go whether to push it to Council, but if you need to go to Council. I understand. That would be my suggestion is that we get a deferral so we can look at some other options because I do believe that this application would warrant a temporary use of the existing entrance if we could just make it safer. Eddie Bourdon: I think your staff agrees. It is not to take anything away from you all wanting to see it. These clients and have worked with staff throughout this process. The economics are what we are all dealing with. And, we have a lease that is 3,000 square feet that we have to deliver that premises for the retail use. The ice cream parlor is driving this train, so we have to move it forward because we don't have a lease with the ice cream parlor. It is a contingent lease. So, we are more than willing to continue the dialogue with staff to find ways to make it safer then it is currently is within the confines that we discussed at length. Otherwise if it was a normal situation, I would be deferring this all day long. It is not. It is an interim. Just to keep the stock the leave. Barry Knight: Ms. Wood? Dorothy Wood: I would like to second Jan's motion. Barry Knight: Let me ask Jan, if she would to make that as a substitute motion. Do you make that as a substitute motion? Janice Anderson: Yes. Barry Knight: So, there is a substitute motion on the floor made by Jan Anderson, seconded by Dot Wood. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 20 Barry Knight: I'll open it among the Commissioners before we vote on the substitute motion first. Mr. Horsley? Donald Horsley: Just as long as the eating establishment is in accordance with this first paragraph that there will be no alcohol served, no live entertainment. We don't want the eating establishment to be turned into something other than an ice cream parlor. Janice Anderson: I'm in agreement. David Redmond: Did I understand you to put a three year time limit on that? Janice Anderson: Yes. Barry Knight: Is there any other discussion? Okay. There is a substitute motion on the floor made by Jan Anderson and seconded by Dot Wood. Is everybody clear that were voting on the substitute motion, which if it carries the other motion goes away? Is there any clarity on that? Mr. Bernas? Jay Bernas: Is there an opportunity to ask Ric one more question? Barry Knight: No. Jay Bernas: Ric, can I ask you one more question? Ric Lowman: Ric Lowman, Traffic Engineering. Jay Bernas: I know you've met with them on several occasions. Do you think there is another solution between now and Council? Ric Lowman: I'm going to tell you the obvious solution is to move the entrance. You get rid of all your safety concerns. I'm not standing here if that happens. You will make it safer. But again, we wouldn't approve it. You asked me if we would approve it for that type of facility, turn it over to high traffic on Shore Drive. We would not approve the entrance except if it was moved. Jay Bernas: So, I guess my question is that there is essentially no hope for any of the ideas that we were talked about today. There is no feasibility in any ofthose that you would change your mind about anything between now and Council? Ric Lowman: It would make it safer then it would be if they did absolutely nothing. Jay Bernas: The only way you approve is moving it? Ric Lowman: Yes. As a professional engineer, my recommendation would be to move it and get rid of all the safety issues, every single one of them. Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.C. Page 21 Jay Bernas: So, anything they would do to make it safer you would still not approve it? Ric Lowman: Not if it came to me as first site plan approval. No sir. Barry Knight: Okay. Ms. Wood. Dorothy Wood: Ric, I so appreciate your work over the past few years. I really enjoyed working with you. You're a very smart young man. The only reason why I'm seconding this motion is the economy right now is not the best it's ever been. And, I would like to see the man be able to get some use out of his property, and I really don't feel like my second of this is anything against you or your recommendations. It is purely the economy. Ric Lowman: I appreciate that. It's been a pleasure working with you the past couple of years. I've mentioned it to the developers as well and to Mr. Bourdon, there are two issues there, and it comes down to basically what Jay has said earlier, which was do we have to spend the $50,000, and I'm not going to say $50,000 is the number because I really don't know. It comes down to do we make them do that to reconcile the safety issues. I understand the economics. Barry Knight: Mr. Henley. We've dealt on this for some time. So, I would like to see the applicants get to use this because just a vacant piece of property is an eyesore. I agree with staff that it is an issue of some concern. However, I like Jan's motion to work with staff to see if some striping or signage or something can take place. Realizing that in probably three years the whole situation is going to go away, and we're going to have a bigger and better use that is going to be in there. With that, I just want to make sure that I had a comment that everyone understood me. Barry Knight: Thank you. We're going to vote on the substitute motion first made by Jan Anderson and seconded by Dot Wood. If the substitute motion carries, the motion to approve the first motion goes away. If the substitute motion fails, then we'll vote on the first motion. So, if everyone is clear, we're voting on the substitute motion. I'll cal for the question. AYE 6 NAY 4 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS NAY CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KA TSIAS NAY KNIGHT NAY LIV AS AYE REDMOND NAY STRANGE Item #11 Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. Page 22 WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 6-4, the application of Nantucket by the Bay, L.L.c. has been approved fro a temporary use for three years as an eating and drinking establishment and possible striping. Joseph Strange: My vote didn't register. Barry Knight: What was Mr. Strange's vote? It wouldn't make any difference on the outcome. Bill Macali: But his vote does need to be recorded. Barry Knight: Give us your verbal Mr. Strange? Joseph Strange: I vote "NAY". Ed Weeden: NAY? Joseph Strange: Yes. Ed Weeden; By a vote of6-5. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all for your patience. You all have a wonderful holiday. I do want to ensure you that we will continue to work with staff. It will be safer. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-6915 DATE: December 31, 2007 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley 8. Kay WilSOr DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application: Nantucket by the Bay, LLC The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 8, 2008. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated October 30, 2007 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. 8 KW/ks Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 30th day of October, 2007, by and between NANTUCKET BY THE BAY, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the owner of three (3) parcels of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately :l: .78 Acres which are more particularly described as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcels are herein together referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated a modification to a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to modify conditions to the Zoning Classification of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has requested Grantee to permit this modification of the previously proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions dated May 31, 2005 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia as Instrument #20051103001781020 (hereinafter "2005 Proffers"), to reflect amendments applicable to the land use plan on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and PREPARED BY; GPIN: 1489-38-7919 1489-39-6043 1489-39-5071 13IB SYk'lS. ROURDON. mil AI!fRN & Lm. P.c. 1 WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the proposed modification of conditions to the zoning, 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 application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed modification to the existing zoning conditions with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted, which conditions have a reasonable relation to the proposed modification and the need for which is generated by the proposed modification. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is redeveloped, in order to achieve a coordinated design and development of this mixed use site in terms of limited vehicular access, parking, landscape buffering, and building design, the "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF VINTAGE QUAY', dated May 30,2005, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan") shall be substantially adhered to. 2. When the Property is redeveloped, vehicular ingress and egress shall be via PREPARED BY: one (1) entrance from Stratford Road. . SYl([S. IlOURDON. 3. The architectural design of the building depicted on the Concept Plan will be Al!rnN & lIVY, P.c substantially as depicted on the exhibit entitled "VINTAGE QUAY Bishard Development 2 Retnauer Design Associates", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Elevation"). The principal exterior building materials shall be brick and synthetic cedar shake siding. 4. When the Property is redeveloped, there will be no more than eighteen (18) residential units and no less than 2400 square feet of enclosed commercial space not utilized for residential purposes, within the building depicted on the Concept Plan. 5. Until the Property is redeveloped, if the existing building is to be utilized for any commercial use it shall be renovated, the exterior of the building shall be upgraded with an earth-tone EIFS exterior and landscaping shall be planted substantially in accordance with the "SOUTH ELEVATION FROM SHORE DRIVE / EAST ELEVATION FROM W. STRATFORD RD. INTERSECTION", which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Landscape Elevation"). 6. The only commercial uses permitted on the Property are: a. retail shops; b. florists, gift shops and stationary stores; c. business studios, office and clinics; d. medical and dental offices and clinics; and e. an eating and drinking establishment not exceeding 2000 square feet in total floor area; which cannot sell any alcoholic beverages; which cannot have any live entertainment; and which will close daily by no later than 11:00 PM. 7. 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. 8. The Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions set forth herein replace and supersede the 2005 Proffers. The Grantor further covenants and agrees that: All references hereinabove to the B-4 (SD) District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated PREPARED BY: herein. 13m SY~IS. ROURDON. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and m AlIrnN & LM. P.c. accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue 3 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. (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the 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 PREPARED BY: of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded ~.m STIIS. ROURDON. in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed mil AllrRN & 1M. P.c. in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. 4 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: Nantucket By The Bay, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: , 'L /, .---. ,/:.' Ii Ii ~ "" J ........ flL"/-'I! .'-'"', ,..,;:; / ,,,,,< <./ to' "....... (I?-t-""''-;~ ,/ Steven Bishard, Managing Member (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31st day of October, 2007, by Steven Bishard, Managing Member of Nantucket By The Bay, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. / iL{~'1t;1 ~ /'~1/'j, ,f I f)' I \/J1~ ' Notary' ublic My Commission Expires: August 31, 2010 Notary Registration No.: 192628 PREPARED BY: ; Syn:s. ROURDON. Am:RN &. 1M. P.c. 5 PREPARED BY, ~m SYkTS. ROURDON. mil AHrnN &. IIVY. P.c. EXHIBIT "A" PARCELl: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lot 7, in Block 33, as shown on that certain plat entitled "Plat of Ocean Park, Section B", 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 5, at Page 137. GPIN: 1489-39-7919 PARCEL 2: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lot 6, in Block 33, as shown on that certain plat entitled, "Plat of Ocean Park, Section B", 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 5, at Page 137. GPIN: 1489-39-6043 PARCEL 3: ALL THOSE certain lots, pieces or parcels of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lots 4, 5, 8 and 9, in Block 33, as shown on that certain plat entitled "Plat of Ocean Park, Section B", 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 5, at Page 137. GPIN: 1489-39-5071 ModificationtoProffersjN antucketbytheBay jProffer 6 ~ia::... "'4-~'" ::!.."'S:~ "~~~-0" 1lt- ~<~- \\) (u: : '. ~>)I ~'. ,. ... :-~ l..;'.-'.--'-' - ~:~ ':::;"'~1/j ....~.~":.r ~~.., CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEMS: (a) An Ordinance to Amend Sections 405, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806, and 1807 of the City Zoning Ordinance, establishing restrictions on development of property within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and adding provisions pertaining to redevelopment of property in Air Installations Compatible Use Noise Zones. (b) An Ordinance to Amend the Official Zoning Map by the addition of Sub-Areas 1, 2 and 3 of the 65 - 70 dB DNL Noise Zone. (c) An Ordinance to Amend the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to the 65 - 70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and a Map of Sub-Areas 1, 2, and 3 of the 65 - 70 dB DNL Noise Zones. MEETING DATE: January 8,2008 . Background: Since the development of the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), the City and the Navy have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), pursuant to which a committee consisting of City Staff and NAS Oceana representatives jointly review discretionary development applications for property located within AICUZ. Although the City's AICUZ Overlay Ordinance does not apply to property in the 65-70 dB DNL AICUZ, the MOU provides that the MOU Committee reviews applications involving property located within the 65-70 dB DNL AICUZ. Since residential use is not compatible within the 65-70 dB DNL AICUZ, rezoning applications for the purpose of developing residential dwellings have proved problematic for the MOU Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. The proposed amendments are largely intended to address this issue. . Considerations: In response to the issue above, City staff and Navy representatives have jointly developed proposed standards governing discretionary development applications in the 65-70 dB DNL AICUZ. These standards are contained in this package of amendments, which does the following: 1. The first ordinance includes amendments to Section 405 and 1806 effectively provide that the Alternative Residential Development Option allowed as a Conditional Use in the Agricultural zoning districts is not CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - 65-70 AICUZ OVERLAY AMENDMENTS Page 2 of 2 available for Agriculturally-zoned property within the Interfacility Traffic Area (ITA), effectively limiting residential development on such property to one (1) dwelling unit per fifteen (15) acres of developable land, as provided in Section 401 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments to Section 1804(c) provide different standards for granting or denying discretionary development applications for residential uses within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone according to the sub-area within that Noise Zone in which the subject property lies. Explanation of those standards is provided in the attached staff report. 2. The second ordinance amends the Official Zoning Map by incorporating and designating Sub-Areas 1, 2, and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL AICUZ. These designations on the Zoning Map identify the areas affected by the amendments to Sections 405 and 1802 through 1806 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 3. The third ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to development in the 65-70 dB DNL AICUZ and the portion of the 70-75 dB DNL AICUZ within the Interfacility Traffic Area (ITA). The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan also include a map of Sub-areas 1, 2 and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL AICUZ. There was opposition to the proposed amendment. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. . Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Amending City Zoning Ordinance Ordinance Amending Official Zoning Map Affected Zoning Maps Ordinance Amending Comprehensive Plan Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Manage. y-- ~ d6~ Item #12 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to Amend Sections 405, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806 and 1807 of the City Zoning Ordinance establishing restrictions on development Of property within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and adding provisions pertaining to redevelopment of property in Air Installations Compatible Use Noise Zones Item # 13 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to Amend the Official Zoning Map by the addition of Sub-Areas 1, 2 and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone Item #14 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to Amend the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions Pertaining to the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and A Map of Sub-Areas 1,2, and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zones. December 12,2007 REGULAR Barry Knight: Mr. Secretary? The next item to be called, and you can lump them together if you would like to sir. Joseph Strange: The next applications are items 12, 13 and 14. It is the City of Virginia Beach. An Ordinance to amend Sections 405, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806 and 1807 of the City Zoning Ordinance, establishing restrictions on development of property within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and adding provisions pertaining to redevelopment of property in Air Installations Compatible Use Noise Zone. Item 13 is the City of Virginia Beach. An Ordinance to amend the Official Zoning Map by the addition of Sub-Areas 1,2 and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone; item 14 is the City of Virginia Beach, an Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to the 65-70 Db DNL Noise Zone and Interfacility Traffic Area and a Map of Sub- Areas 1,2, and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zones. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Macali. We had a workshop with you explaining this extensively to us. I think we certainly need to get some sort of overview on the record; so, could you explain to us, as you see fit. Bill Macali: As the Commission knows, there are no regulations in place now that govern discretionary development applications in the 65-70 dB DNL noise zone. Of the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance, which was enacted in December 2005, really just imposes those restrictions in areas covered by the 70-75 dB DNL and greater than 75 dB DNL noise contours. We have been working in close concert with the Navy on developing regulations that restrict, to some extent, development in the 65-70 dB DNL noise zone. What we've Items #12, 13 and 14 City of Virginia Beach Page 2 done, I guess we can break it down in to three separate divisions. The first in the Interfacility Traffic Area, which is the area that is in the flight path between NAS Oceana and NAL Fentress in Chesapeake, is an area of special concern to the Navy. What we've done is to further restrict the development potential of residential uses in that area to one dwelling unit per 15 acres of developable property. That is a significant restriction. It was 75 and above and greater than 75 dB DNL noise zone. It is 1 to 15 but in the 70-75 dB, it is I to 5, and as I mentioned before, the 65-70 dB noise zone is not covered by these regulations, and so there is the possibility that under the Comprehensive Plan a rezoning could be granted to as much as one dwelling unit per one developable acre of land. That would change with this ordinance everywhere in the IT A. There would be no more than one per fifteen. The second thing that we've done is to provide for different restrictions depending on the area within the 65-70 dB noise zone that we're talking about. There is a map of the Comprehensive Plan that shows those noise zones. In addition, the zoning map itself will have those mapped out on a much smaller scale so individual property owners can see where their property is. Essentially, we created three different sub-areas of the 65-70 dB DNL noise zone. One is Sub-Area 1, which essentially covers the Oceanfront. There, development is permitted so long, all this, by the way, is talking about only discretionary development, which is to say development that meets the approval of City Council as opposed to be permitted by-right. In other words, it is restricted to mostly to development which requires rezonings or Conditional Use Permits for residential uses. So, in Sub-Area 1, which is essentially the City's Resort Area, the City Council can grant a discretionary development application for a residential use only if two things occur. One is that the proposed development conforms to the requirements of the new zoning ordinance, which is to say that every development in the city when it gets rezoned has to obviously conform to whatever it is rezoned too. So, that is not really a very strict standard. However, what we also have said is that such a development has to conform to all ofthe Comprehensive Plan provisions to pertain to development in the Resort Area, which depending on whether it could meet the Old Beach Guidelines, Laskin Road Gateway Design Guidelines, and there are more general design guidelines and plans as well. But basically, in the Resort Area, a development can be granted, rezoned or by Use Permit for a residential use only if the proposed development conforms to the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Now, the second sub-area we have created is Sub-Area 2, which extends south of the. .. do we have slides of that by any chance. . .. In any event, it extends south of the Resort Area down along the General Booth corridor, swinging west on to Princess Anne Road, and I believe that the Commission has something in their agenda. It is frankly, not very good, but we did brief you on it and if anybody wants a better map, we can certainly provide that. But essentially, Sub-Area 2 is that area that extends from Rudee Inlet south, General Booth Boulevard extends out along Princess Anne Road, and up Princess Anne Road for a ways. There, the development restrictions are more significant. Development in the Sub-Area 2 is permitted only if the proposed density is greater than either the same density as the surrounding property or , if the Comprehensive Plan has a recommendation for density, that density, whichever is lower. In no case, can no density be increased either over what the Comprehensive Plan says or what surrounding property with similar use is. And it also has to conform to the Comprehensive Plan guidelines for such developments that apply in the Princess Anne Corridor Area and other area's guidelines in Sub-Area 2. Sub-Area 3 runs west of Oceana. That is an area of special concern for the Items #12, 13 and 14 City of Virginia Beach Page 3 Navy because it is highly developed. There have been a great number of noise complaints. There have been plaintiffs with lawsuits against the Navy there. And, the flight tracks are more frequent in that area. So, the Navy is more concerned about the development in that area. In that area, the standards ate the same as the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance had since December 2005, in the 70-75 and greater than 75 dB DNL noise zones. By that, I mean that if there is any other reasonable use of the property that is not residential, the property can not be rezoned to allow residential. And, if there are no other reasonable uses, then the property can be rezoned only to the least or the lowest density that is reasonable to Sub-Area 3. That is a strict development guideline. It is actually more than a guideline. It is a standard. It's an ordinance. It's a rule that City Council must follow, and again, it's the same as has been in place since the 70-75 or greater than 75 dB DNL noise zone. Finally, we have one overall exemption from the ordinance and that concerns residential redevelopment. Residential redevelopment, and this applies anywhere in the AICUZ footprint, not just the 65-70 dB DNL noise zones but the 70-75 or greater than 75 dB DNL, as well. But what we have done is say that the residential redevelopment is exempt from the AICUZ Ordinance. In other words, you don't have to meet any other standards in the sub-areas or show that is the only reasonable use of the property, etc., etc., so long as the number of residential units or the density of the residential development in that particular area that you're developing is either the same as or less than existing density that is on the ground before the application was filed. Essentially that conforms to the Navy's recognition that there are certain uses that are what's called "pre-existing, non-conforming" uses, and so long as the number of those uses, the density of those uses, which are all residential does not increase. In a redevelopment scenario, that can happen without the necessity of complying with the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance. I'm sorry for kind of giving you the race horse summary. At this point, I understand that the Commission has been briefed on this, and essentially understands what this ordinance is all about. I can only say at this point that I will be happy to try and answer any questions that anybody cares to ask. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Macali? On these ordinances, on the properties that are affected, every piece of property has a permitted use on it. The way it is zoned now, and some people, of course, buy some property with the anticipation that they can use it as a more intensive use than what is permitted and that is why they come before us, and they go to City Council. It is not a guarantee but it is an option that they have. Are these ordinances here going to effectively downzone any pieces of property without it? Bill Macali: No sir. The zoning on not one single property in the city is changed by this ordinance. Any by-right development, which was allowed on any particular piece of parcel in the 65-70 dB DNL noise zone, as well as anywhere else in the city, remains exactly the same after this ordinance as before. It is not downzoned at all. Barry Knight: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Macali? Ms. Anderson? Janice Anderson: I have one, which I failed to ask earlier. The third tier, does that affect any strategic growth area along Virginia Beach Boulevard? Items #12, 13 and 14 City of Virginia Beach Page 4 Bill Macali: Yes. I believe so. I think that leaves one Strategic Growth Area that I can think of is in Sub-Area 3, but I probably need to defer to Tom Pauls, who is coming up right now. Janice Anderson: Sorry Tom. Tom Pauls: That is okay. Barry Knight: Welcome Tom. Identify yourself please? Tom Pauls: Yes sir. Tom Pauls, Comprehensive Planning, City of Virginia Beach. Not having a map before me, when you said third tier Jan, were you talking about Sub-Area 3, just to the west? Janice Anderson: Yes. Y es. Yes. Tom Pauls: Are there any Strategic Growth Areas affected by that? I don't know for sure, but I believe possibly, Strategic Growth Area 5, which is basically in the Rosemont RoadNirginia Beach Boulevard area might be. Again, as Bill was saying, this is not going to affect any existing zoning. And, I think what we might need to do, as we move forward with the Comprehensive Plan, we might need to consider possible changes in more detail for some of the Strategic Growth Areas. This could be addressed at that time. And if wee need to revisit this ordinance, along with the Navy and others, that is good possibility. Bill Macali: I think probably it wouldn't be too hard for somebody to go grab a Comprehensive Plan and get that answer right now. Tom Pauls: Sure. Stephen White: We have the answer. Tom is right. That is the only area that is affected. Janice Anderson: Rosemont. Eugene Crabtree: Between Rosemont and L ynnhaven. Tom Pauls: Strategic Growth Area 5 is the one along Rosemont and Virginia Beach Boulevard. Eugene Crabtree: Along Virginia Beach Boulevard between Rosemont and Lynnhaven. Tom Pauls: Yes sir. Bill Macali: Ms. Anderson? I note probably one thing you want to keep in mind is that redevelopment provisions will be applied more often than not in any kind of Strategic Growth Area, because they're already developed. Items #12, 13 and 14 City of Virginia Beach Page 5 Janice Anderson: Right. Bill Macali: So, we're talking about new development in Strategic Growth Area that generally consists of redevelopment where you don't have to make the standard showing that there is no other reasonable new besides your residential. You just have to redevelop at the same or lower density. So, that is important to keep in mind. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Redmond? David Redmond: Mr. Macali, at the workshop that we had, I asked the question about what metrics were used to determine these various areas. When you said flight operations, I can layout a map and tell you what I see circling in the sky. Do you have any insight on that? Other than what I see in the sky. Is it the number of flights? Try to paint that for me. Bill Macali: These are based on information that was provided to us sometime ago by the Navy. Perhaps someone from the Navy could do some assistance in that regard that is here today. Barry Knight: Mr. Redmond, would you like to ask one of the representatives from the Navy to give you some clarity? Dave Redmond: Nobody looks terribly eager over there to answer the question. Barry Knight: We can get Mr. Lauterbach up here. Commander Lauterbach. Dave Redmond: I'll rephrase that for you just for your purpose. I can look at the map, and I can see sort of the way jets circle in the sky, and get an idea for what that means but could you give me an idea of what metrics are used, and why they're necessarily important to you? John Lauterbach: Ladies and gentlemen, John Lauterbach for NAS Oceana. Also, congratulations. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. John Lauterbach: The three sub-areas are actually a combination of concerns as between the Navy and the City. Sub-Area 1, in which it is proposed to codify by ordinance, the understanding that we arrived at with the City with respect to Oceanfront development, not necessarily RT-l, 2, or 3, Laskin Road Gateway. Those are primarily city concerns that we came to them on that; so, that is what you find Sub-Area 1. It is between Sub-Area 2 and 3. Sub-Area 2 to the east and southeast with the station, and Sub-Area 3 to the west or northwest of the station, and Sub-Area 3 is under the "interior" part of the city. It does receive somewhat more of the affects of flight operations. In other words, more of the runways affect that part of the city. Items #12, 13 and 14 City of Virginia Beach Page 6 Dave Redmond: Okay. John Lauterbach: But most importantly with the respect between Sub-Area 2 and Sub-Area 3, Sub-Area 2 to the east, on the ocean side, is and has been amenable to our looking at our course rules and modifying how we fly in order to try to mitigate the effects of flight operations on the City. In other words, we can fly out over the ocean to the greatest degree there. On the interior portion of the city, there really is not opportunity to look at innovative course rules to mitigate the affects. There is nowhere else to go. Essentially, those are the considerations that originally went into late 2004, early 2005, when we started looking at the contours and trying to decide, and place opinions of how the affects on our operational authority within those areas. Dave Redmond: Thank you. Barry Knight: Are there any.other questions? Mr. Henley? Al Henley: Let me give you a scenario so I can understand this a little bit better. Say we have a scenario in this area in zone 2. And, the property is zone agriculture. That means one house per 15 acres. If the property or land owner came in and wanted to subdivide it and say put three or six units per acre, and it came across your staffs desk, what would be your recommendation? John Lauterbach: First thing that we do is, and the way it works is it comes to us that again, we analyze these in concert with the city staff at the, we call it the MOU Committee, where we look at applications that are affected by the ordinance as it exists now, and it would be affected by these amendments. And, what we're looking at are the criteria under (c)(2); so, we would look to see, it would have to be discretionary development. The development and let's assume it is residential, it would have to be proposed at a density only similar to or lower than the surrounding properties having similar use and recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. So, we would be obviously looking at the map and seeing what the surrounding density is, see what the Comprehensive Plan recommends, and then the second sub paragraph would be looked at to see if there are any particular provisions in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to that area that meet that criteria. If it meets those criteria, it would not raise any objection on our part. We go through the MOU Committee with a statement that it meets the criteria of the ordinance. Bill Macali: Mr. Chairman? Can I just expand on that? Barry Knight: Yes sir. Bill Maca1i: Commander Lauterbach is absolutely right. Just to remind the Commission, in February, the City and the Navy entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, which is an off-shoot of the Joint Land Use Study. And the reason for that was the City and the Navy had agreed, that is part essentially of the Joint Land Use Study, that the City would involve the Navy in the development of the process at a much earlier stage of the proceedings than Items #12, 13 and 14 City of Virginia Beach Page 7 before. So, what the MOU does is set up a process where an application comes in. If it is covered by the ordinance, and it is circulated to the Navy and the City, and we meet regularly, once per month on all of these applications. The idea is that the applications are not going to be looked at by the City and by the Navy separately, and have the Planning staff recommend one thing, and perhaps the Navy sending a letter contrary to the effect to Planning Commission and the Council, but rather a much better process where we sit down and representatives of both the City and the Navy go through the standards and the ordinance, which in your example and those that Commander Lauterbach mentioned, and come up with a joint recommendation for the City Council, and for the Planning Commission. So, instead of the possibility the Navy could say one thing, and the City another, and that may happen in certain cases, if we just can't agree on, but we think in the vast majority of the cases just this neutral examination and discussion on a formalized basis once a month will take care of that. So, that's part of what were doing here. We're just carrying that a step further and applying the principles that were established in the MOU, formalizing them in this ordinance. But the answer to your question is, and Commander Lauterbach is exactly right. You take that example. You look at the surrounding property and look at the Comprehensive Plan, and we look at the ordinance, and determine jointly whether or not the proposed application meets the requirements of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. So, it is impossible to say what we would do without knowing what the certain property is, but that is absolutely that is something which matters a lot. I guess the point is it is not going to be the Navy's recommendation, the City's recommendation. It is going to be a joint Navy/City recommendation. And those will be coming before you, assuming this ordinance is adopted by Council, next month. Al Henley: Okay. Thank you Bill. Barry Knight: Are there any other questions for Mr. Macali or Commander Lauterbach? Thank you. John Lauterbach: Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Strange? Do you have other speakers? Joseph Strange: We have one speaker in opposition. RJ. McGinnis. Barry Knight: Welcome sir. Please state your name for the record. RJ. McGinnis: Rip McGinnis. I live in Virginia Beach, and I own property on Princess Anne Road, and I will be affected by this ordinance. And, I'm against any further granting of controls to the Navy that limits property rights of citizens in Virginia Beach. There was an agreement in 2005, between the Navy and the City, in that the Princess Anne Corridor Study, which my property is involved in, was also amended to go along with that. And, now we are here two years later, where the Navy is after more controls over property in the 65-70 dB DNL noise zone. I've followed Planning items for many a year, and I don't ever remember, until recently, any zoning being opposed by the Navy for residential developing in the 65-70 dB DNL noise zone, until, I guess, the Habitat for Humanity and the Atlantic Garden Center. Items #12, 13 and 14 City of Virginia Beach Page 8 So, they are changing the rules constantly. I think the City has been overboard with being a good neighbor, but it does affect properties in Virginia Beach. And, my property is in the Princess Anne Corridor Study, across from the TPC golf course, and it has been part of the Princess Anne Corridor Study since 2007 that set up incentives to have a better development, which allowed density up to six units an acre and certain incentives were granted, which basically was to help eliminate traffic problems along Princess Anne that the City had allowed to happen as far as ingress/egress Princess Anne Road. These amendments take all that away. Basically, you're eliminating any bonus incentive for any work done in the Princess Anne Corridor Study. And, what I just heard from the Commander and from Mr. Macali is that there is a committee that is going to review all of this and really decide before it ever gets to the Planning Commission or City Council; so, if they are in opposition to it, does this body really have the authority to approve it. That is one concern that I have. And, just a concern that for seven years you had a Princess Anne Corridor Study for allowing bonus for certain incentive, and now that is eliminated. And, in the first agenda, I noticed the word "may". I'm not trying to be an attorney but it says "Council may do this". Barry Knight: Continue. RJ. McGinnis: And it "may" allow if you meet all the requirements as where in the Princess' Anne Corridor Study, it basically started out you will be allowed to develop a residential at the baseline of two units per acre. Thank you for your time. Barry Knight: Mr. McGinnis? Mr. Macali, would you care to expand on it? Bill Macali: I can address some things. It does not take away the applicability of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan again is not a by-right document. It does not give anybody any rights to develop at all. That seems to be a misunderstanding that we encounter frequently. But ifthe Comprehensive Plan allows for development at the maximum density of six units per acre, assuming the City Council rezones property to allow that, this ordinance would not take that away. In fact, it would reinforce that by saying that Council can only go up to that particular density and not above it. That's assuming that the surrounding property that is no of a similar use isn't at a lesser density, but if there is no surrounding similar uses, and we use the Comprehensive Plan, and all that we're saying is that the ordinance says that Council can't rezone property into a higher density than the Comprehensive Plan allows. As to the function ofthe MOU Committee, we've been doing this for, I think about April or so. We invite the applicant in all situations to come down and not only listen to the meetings but we ask questions. We answer questions. We ask the applicant ifhe thinks there is anything he or she might want to say about it. Our recommendation is simply that, it's a recommendation. Planning Commission isn't bound by it. The City Council is not bound by it. It is simply a recommendation of staff much like the Planning Department gives recommendations and the Navy gives recommendations, the only difference is that these will be joint that will be entered into after a great deal of thought and examination of each individual application in the presence of the applicant. Items #12, 13 and 14 City of Virginia Beach Page 9 Barry Knight: Mr. McGinnis? If you have something to add, Ms. Anderson said she wll sponsor you for some additional comments. RJ. McGinnis: Oh, thank you very much. What I just wanted to say is that I understand that he says the Comprehensive Plan won't be affected and the Princess Anne Corridor Study, but it is affected, because you're adding and the density cannot exceed or has to be equal or less than the surrounding density when that was not the purpose of the bonus incentive in the Princess Ann Corridor Study. They never mentioned it before, and that is what is being added now. So, basically the Princess Anne Corridor Study, as far as any bonus, there is a whole section in there. There are several pages on it. It has been eliminated. And, we'll be back to the density of the surrounding areas without a developer trying to access an ingress/egress on Princess Anne Road and other properties that don't have proper access. So, that's my point. I just wanted to point that out. Thank you very much. Barry Knight: Are there anyother questions for Mr. McGinnis? Thank you sir. Mr. Macali, you're representing the applicant. Do you have anything to add? Bill Macali: No sir. Barry Knight: Is there any discussion? Mr. Whitney? Jack Whitney: I would simply add that I agree with everything that Bill has said in his usual thorough characterization presentation. The intent here, of course, is to clarify to both the Navy and the City staff, and property owners, how the MOU process and the conduct of reviewing and considering discretionary density increases in the 65-70 dB ring of the AICUZ footprint that will be conducted. As Bill had said earlier as well, we've worked in close cooperation with our partners at NAS Oceana. We've been working almost a year now on the MOU process, which I believe firmly, has been an excellent cooperative relationship, far superior to what existed prior to it. I think these changes will provide clarity and some direction. It will provide a tighter, cleaner, more readily understandable record for you to consider. It will be contained and summarized in your packet, as well as on to the City Council. It also, over time represent a much tighter record for demonstrating the cooperative relationship that the City has taken with the Navy as part ofthe JLUS program to manage land use in the area. It was prepared with respect to both land use considerations and air operations and needs and considerations to the Navy, and we think that it is something that is an advancement to what we currently have in our procedures, ordinances and plans, and we obviously recommend that the Planning Commission adopt it. Barry Knight: Mr. Whitney? As you stated, we do have a more cooperative understanding with the Navy. You are meeting jointly with the Navy. We are showing the Navy that we want them to stay here. We want to be a good neighbor as we want them to be a good neighbor with us. But, and I shouldn't use the word" but", but the ultimate thing is when it comes to staff, it comes to Planning Commission and it comes to the Navy, the ultimate land use zoning decisions within the City of Virginia Beach lies solely with the City Council. Is that correct sir? Items #12, 13 and 14 City of Virginia Beach Page 10 Jack Whitney: Yes sir. Barry Knight: So, I guess it goes to show at what lengths that the City Council does want to keep the Navy here, and be a good neighbor to the Navy. Jack Whitney: Absolutely. Let me add this. This is just a reiteration of something that Bill said, and I plan to agree with it anyway. This does not supersede or eliminate the MOU process. Each application impacted by these ordinances would have come to the MOU anyway with or without the ordinances. Again, I think it provides clarity. It also, very importantly gives the applicant an opportunity to come in, present his situation to the MOU committee, and participate in a complete more understanding of what is being proposed. That was a feature that has not existed prior to this process. Barry Knight: Thank you. Mr. Crabtree? Eugene Crabtree: I just want to say that I think this is a result of finally having dialogue between the City of Virginia Beach and the Department of Defense. The officials at Oceana and the Navy, and these ordinances are a result of that, which a lot of work has gone into and all. I would like to make a motion that we approve agenda items 12, 13 and 14 as presented to us. Barry Knight: Okay. There is a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Dorothy Wood: I will be happy to second it. Barry Knight: Okay. Thank you. There is a motion on the floor made by Gene Crabtree and seconded by Dot Wood to approve agenda items 12, 13 and 14. Is there any discussion? I'll call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KA TSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, the Board has approved the applications of the City of Virginia Beach agenda items 12, 13 and 14. , I Items #12, 13 and 14 City of Virginia Beach Page II Barry Knight: We'll say good bye to Dot Wood. Meeting is adjourned. Dorothy Wood: Thank you very much. 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 405, 1802, 1803, 2 1804, 1805, 1806 AND 1807 OF THE CITY ZONING 3 ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIONS ON 4 DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE 65-70 dB 5 DNL NOISE ZONE AND INTERFACILlTY TRAFFIC AREA 6 AND ADDING PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO 7 REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IN AIR 8 INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE NOISE ZONES 9 10 11 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning 12 practice so require; 13 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 15 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 16 17 That Sections 405, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806 and 1807 of the City Zoning 18 Ordinance are hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: 19 20 21 ARTICLE 4. AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS 22 23 24 25 Sec. 405. Alternative residential development pursuant to conditional use 26 permits. 27 28 Except as provided in Section 1806. as As an alternative to the residential 29 development permitted by right in the agricultural districts, the 9!Y council may 3'/o'ard 30 Qrant a conditional use permit to allow residential development at a density greater than 31 that which is permitted by right. The following regulations shall apply to residential 32 development outside of the Interfacilitv Traffic Area in the AG-1 and AG-2 AQricultural 33 Districts pursuant to condition31 use permits this section: 34 35 36 37 COMMENT 38 39 The amendments effectively provide that the alternative residential development option is 40 not available for agriculturally-zoned property within the Interfacility Traffic Area (ITA), 41 effectively limiting residential development on such property to one (1) dwelling unit per fifteen 42 (15) acres of developable land, as provided in City Zoning Ordinance Section 401. 43 44 Other revisions are stylistic and have no substantive effect. The omitted language 45 represented by the ellipsis on Line 35 sets forth development standards for the alternative 46 residential development option and has no relevance to this ordinance. 47 48 ARTICLE 18. SPECIAL REGULATIONS IN AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE 49 ZONES (AICUZ) 50 51 A. OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 52 53 Sec. 1800. Title. 54 55 This article shall be known as the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones 56 (AICUZ) Overlay Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach. 57 58 Sec. 1801. Purpose and intent. 59 60 The purpose of this article is to regulate, in a manner consistent with the rights of 61 individual property owners and the requirements of military operations at Naval Air 62 Station (NAS) Oceana, development of uses and structures that are incompatible with 63 military operations; to sustain the economic health of the city and Hampton Roads 64 Region; to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare from the adverse 65 impacts associated with high levels of noise from flight operations at NAS Oceana and 66 the potential for aircraft accidents associated with proximity to airport operations; and to 67 maintain the overall quality of life of those who live, work and recreate in the City of 68 Virginia Beach. 69 70 Sec. 1802. Findings. 71 72 The city council hereby finds that: 73 74 (a) Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana was first established as an auxiliary airfield 75 in 1943 and was designated as a major Navy jet air base in the 1950s. It is now one of 76 the largest Navy air bases in the country and is the Master Jet Base for the Navy's 77 Atlantic Fleet. NAS Oceana is a vital component in the architecture of the Defense 78 Department's joint service method of operational planning and execution and in the 79 newly-emerging inter-agency approach to meeting homeland defense requirements; 80 81 (b) NAS Oceana is the single largest employer in the City of Virginia Beach. In 82 2003, it had a gross annual payroll of over seven hundred fifty million dollars 83 ($750,000,000.00) and spent another four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000.00) for 84 goods and services. In that year, over twelve thousand (12,000) personnel, comprised 85 of nearly nine thousand eight hundred (9,800) military and over two thousand five 86 hundred (2,500) civilian employees, were employed there. Most of those employees live 87 within the community, infusing additional benefits into the local economy, primarily 88 through spending and spousal employment salaries. When considering the personal 89 impact of the military in the community, the economic benefit exceeds one billion dollars 90 ($1,000,000,000.00) annually; 91 2 92 (c) There are more than thirty thousand (30,000) acres of land in areas within 93 the 70-75 dB DNL or >75 dB DNL Noise Zones and approximatelv 16.500 acres of land 94 within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. Approximately four thousandJ. twa three hundred 95 (~ 4.300) acres of this land is encumbered by easements or restrictive covenants 96 that limit the uses of the land to those that are not incompatible with flight operations 97 arising out of NAS Oceana; 98 99 (d) Since the installation's inception, development of a type deemed 100 incompatible under the Navy's AICUZ Program has occurred, such that the Navy has 101 voluntarily modified flight arrival and departure procedures, thereby resulting in flight 102 procedures and training that do not replicate actual aircraft carrier operating procedures. 103 104 (e) In August 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission 105 added to the list of installations to be closed or realigned the recommendation to realign 106 NAS Oceana by relocating the Atlantic Fleet's East Coast Master Jet Base to Cecil Field 107 in Jacksonville, Florida if, among other things, the cities of Virginia Beach and 108 Chesapeake fail to enact and enforce legislation to prevent further encroachment of 109 NAS Oceana by the end of March 2006 by adopting zoning ordinances that require the 110 governing bodies to follow Air Installations Compatibility Use Zone (AICUZ) guidelines 111 in deciding discretionary development applications for property in noise level 70 dB day 112 night average noise level (DNL) or greater; 113 114 (f) The closure or realignment of NAS Oceana would have serious adverse 115 economic consequences to the city and the region; and 116 117 (g) In 2004 and 2005, the City of Virginia Beach, along with the cities of Norfolk 118 and Chesapeake, joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District 119 Commission to craft a regional joint land use study (JLUS). Among the 120 recommendations of the JLUS was that the city adopt an ordinance applicable in all 121 noise zones greater than 65 dB DNL to help prevent encroachment at NAS Oceana. 122 The JLUS was accepted by resolution of the city council in May of 2005 and the city 123 council directed that appropriate ordinances implementing the recommendations of the 124 JLUS be brought forward for its consideration. 125 126 COMMENT 127 128 The amendments add to the findings set forth in the ordinance information concerning the 129 acreage of land within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and update the information concerning the 130 acreage under Navy easements. 131 132 Sec. 1803. Applicability. 133 134 (a) Area of applicability. Except 3S pro':ided in Section 1805 3nd in P3rt B of 135 this ,^,rticle, the The provisions of this Article shall apply to discretionary development 136 applications for any property located within an Accident Potential Zone (APZ) or Noise 137 ~ 65-70 dB DNL. 70-75 dB DNL or >75 dB DNL Noise Zone, as shown on the 3 138 official zoning map, that have not been approved or denied by the City Council as of the 139 date of adoption of this Article. For purposes of this Article, discretionary development 140 applications shall include applications for: 141 142 (1) Rezonings, including conditional zonings; 143 144 (2) Conditional use permits for new uses or structures, or for alterations or 145 enlargements of existing conditional uses where the occupancy occupant 146 load would increase; 147 148 (3) Conversions or enlargements of nonconforming uses or structures, except 149 where the application contemplates the construction of a new building or 150 structure or expansion of an existing use or structure where the total 151 occup:mcy occupant load would not increase; and 152 153 (4) Street closures where the application contemplates the construction of a 154 new building or structure or the expansion of a use or structure where the 155 total occupancy occupant load is increased. 156 157 COMMENT 158 1 59 The changes to this section are stylistic in nature and have no substantive effect. 160 161 Sec. 1804. Discretionary development applications; city council policy. 162 163 (a) City Council policy. Except as otherwise provided in section 1806 this 164 Article, it shall be the policy of the city council that no application included within the 165 provisions of section Section 1803 shall be approved unless the uses and structures it 166 contemplates are designated as compatible!! under Table 1 below and, if applicable, 167 Table 2~ unless the city council finds that no reasonable use designated as compatible 168 under the applicable table or tables can be made of the property. In such cases, the city 169 council shall, subject to the provisions of section 1806(3), approve the proposed use of 170 property at the teast lowest density or intensity of development that is reasonable. 171 172 (b) Tables. The following tables show the uses designated as compatible (Y) 173 and those designated as not compatible (N) in each listed noise zone Noise Zone 174 (Table 1) or accident potenti31 zone Accident Potential Zone (Table 2). The designation 175 of any use as Comp3tible compatible shall not be construed to allow such use in any 176 zoning district in which it is not permitted as either a principal or conditional use. 177 178 TABLE INSET: 179 TABLE 1 - AIR INSTAllATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES lAND USE COMPATIBILITY IN NOISE ZONES 4 Land Use Land Use Compatibility Land Use Name 70-75 dB >75 dB DNL DNL Residential and Related Single-family dwellings N N Semidetached dwellings N N Attached dwellings/townhouses N N Duplexes N N Multiple-family dwellings N N Dormitories and other group quarters N N Mobile home parks N N Hotels and motels N N Other residential uses N N Manufacturing Food & kindred products; manufacturing y y Textile mill products; manufacturing y y Apparel and other finished products; products made from y y fabrics, leather and similar materials; manufacturing Lumber and wood products (except furniture); y y manufacturing Furniture and fixtures; manufacturing Y Y Paper and allied products; manufacturing y y Printing, publishing, and allied industries Y Y Chemicals and allied products; manufacturing y y Petroleum refining and related industries Y y Rubber and misc. plastic products; manufacturing y y Stone, clay and glass products; manufacturing y y Primary metal products; manufacturing y y Fabricated metal products; manufacturing y y 5 Professional scientific, and controlling instruments; y y photographic and optical goods; watches and clocks Miscellaneous manufacturing y y Transportation, communication and utilities Railroad, rapid rail transit, and street railway transportation Y Y Motor vehicle transportation y y Aircraft transportation y y Marine craft transportation y y Highway and street right-of-way Y y Automobile parking y y Communication y y Utilities y y Other transportation, communication and utilities Y y Trade Wholesale trade y y Retail trade - building materials, hardware and farm y y equipment Retail trade - general merchandise Y y Retail trade - food y y Retail trade - automotive, marine craft, aircraft and y y accessories Retail trade - apparel and accessories Y y Services Retail trade - furniture, home, furnishings and equipment Y Y Retail trade - eating and drinking establishments Y y Other retail trade y y Finance, insurance and real estate services Y y Personal services Y y 6 Cemeteries Y Y Business services Y Y Warehousing and storage Y Y Repair services Y Y Professional services Y Y Hospitals, other medical fae. facilities Y N Nursing homes N N Contract construction services Y Y Government services Y Y Educational services Y N Miscellaneous Y Y Cultural, entertainment and recreational Cultural activities (& churches) Y N Nature exhibits N N Public assembly halls N N Auditoriums, concert halls Y N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters N N Outdoor sports arenas, spectator sports Y N Other outdoor recreational facilities Y Y Indoor recreational facilities Y Y Campgrounds Y N Parks Y N Other cultural, entertainment and recreation Y N Resource Production and Extraction Agriculture (except live stock) Y Y Livestock farming Y N Animal breeding Y N Agriculture related activities Y Y 7 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 Forestry activities y y Fishing activities y y Mining activities y y Other resource production or extraction y y (c) Soecial reaulations in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. The followina reaulations shall apply to discretionary development applications for residential uses on property within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. Residential uses shall include all of the uses listed under the headina of "Residential and Related" in Table 1 of this section. (1) For property within Sub-area 1 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. discretionary development applications for residential uses may be aranted only if the City Council finds that the proposed development: (j) conforms to the applicable provisions of the City Zonina Ordinance. includina all reauirements of the zonina district: and (ij) conforms to the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. includina. without limitation. the Oceanfront Resort Area Plan. Laskin Road Gateway Desian Guidelines. Old Beach Desian Guidelines or Oceanfront Resort Area Desian Guidelines. (2) For property within Sub-area 2 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. discretionary development applications for residential uses may be approved only if the City Council finds that the proposed development: (j) is at a density similar to or lower than that of surroundina properties havina a similar use and no areater than recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; and (ij) conforms to the applicable provISions of the Comprehensive Plan. includina. without limitation. the Princess Anne Corridor Study. Princess Anne Commons Desian Guidelines. or Mixed Use Development Guidelines. 8 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 (3) For property within Sub-area 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. it shall be the policy of the City Council that no application for a residential use shall be approved unless the City Council finds that no reasonable non-residential use can be made of the property. in which event the City Council may allow the proposed residential use of such property at the lowest density that is reasonable. (d) Redevelopment. The provisions of this section shall not apply to discretionary development applications for the redevelopment of property where the proposed dwellinQ unit density is the same as or lower than the actual dwellinQ unit density existinQ at the time the application is submitted. COMMENT The substantive amendments to this section are in subsections (c) and (d). Subsection (c) provides different standards for granting or denying discretionary development applications for residential uses within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone according to the sub-area within that Noise Zone in which the subject property lies. Two points must be noted: first, with one unlikely-to-occur exception (outdoor music shells and amphitheatres), the only uses that are deemed incompatible under the OPNA V Instruction in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone are residential uses, which include all types of dwellings, hotels/motels, trailer parks and dormitories. For that reason, the proposed development restrictions in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone address only residential development. Second, the sub-areas themselves will be shown both on the City's zoning map and on a map in the Comprehensive Plan as discrete areas within the 65-70 dB DNL noise contour (ordinances adding the sub-areas to the Plan and the zoning map are being brought forward concurrently with this ordinance). The standards for granting discretionary development applications in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone are increasingly stringent in each higher-numbered sub-area, as follows: In Sub-area 1 (the portion of the Resort Area within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone), discretionary development applications for residential uses may be approved only if the City Council finds that they meet all applicable criteria of the City Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. In Sub-area 2, such applications may be approved only if the City Council finds that the proposed development is at a density similar to or lower than that of surrounding properties having a similar use and no greater than recommended by the Comprehensive, and that it conforms to the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Sub-area 2 generally includes the portion of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone from Rudee Inlet south to Indian River Road and west to Princess Anne Road near the former TPC course. In Sub-area 3, the most restrictive area, the same standards apply as in the 70-75 dB DNL and >75 dB DNL Noise Zones, i.e., no discretionary development application for a residential use may be approved if there is any reasonable non-residential use of the subject property. If no such 9 266 use exists, the City Council may allow the proposed use of such property at the lowest density that 267 is reasonable. Sub-area 3 includes essentially the remainder of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, 268 except for the portion within the Interfacility Traffic Area (which is addressed in Section 1806 269 below) and an area south of Indian River Road comprised almost exclusively of land in the 270 Agricultural Reserve Program or on which development is severely constrained by environmental 271 conditions. 272 273 Another significant change made by the proposed ordinance concerns redevelopment for 274 residential use. Subsection (d) exempts from the provisions of Section 1804 discretionary 275 development applications for residential uses when the application seeks the same or a lower 276 density than the existing density on the property. Thus, for example, if a rezoning application 277 seeking to redevelop property would, if granted, result in the same or a lower number of residential 278 dwelling units on the same property than actually exist at the time the application is made, the 279 AICUZ Overlay Ordinance would not apply. 280 281 Sec. 1805. Sound attenuation. 282 283 Sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated in any use or structure 284 located in the noise zones 65-70 dB DNL, 70-75 dB DNL or >75 dB DNL Noise Zones in 285 accordance with the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. 286 287 COMMENT 288 289 The changes to this section are stylistic only and have no substantive effect. 290 291 292 Sec. 1806. Allowable residential density in Interfacility Traffic Area. 293 294 (a) Subject to Notwithstandina the provisions of Section 402 (b) and 405 295 (Alternative Residential Development in Agricultural Districts), single family residential 296 development in agricultural districts shall be permitted as a conditional use at the 297 following density in that portion of the Princess Anne/Transition Area designated as on 298 property within the ~Interfacility Traffic Area~ on the official zoning map shall be limited 299 to sinQle-family dwellinQs at a density no areater than one (1) dwellinQ per fifteen (15) 300 acres of developable land. 301 302 303 TABLE INSET: 304 Noise Zone Maximum Permitted Density (Single Family D'Nellings) 70 75 dB DNL: One (1) per five (5) acres of developable land > 75 dB DNL: One (1) per fifteen (15) acres of developable kmd 305 306 (b) 'Nhcre a tract of land is located within more than one (1) noiae zone, lote 307 shall be cituated, to the extent practicable, on the portion of the tract 'Nithin the 1000\'ost 10 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 noise zone. In suoh 03ses, the portion of the tract 'I.'ithin the lowest noise zone m3Y cont3in the entire number of dwellings 3110'lJ3ble on the 3cro3ge of the entire tr3ct. COMMENT The amendments limit residential development on property within the Interfacility Traffic Area to one single-family dwelling per 15 acres of developable land. Sec. 1807. Reservation of powers; severability. (a) Nothing in this Article shall be construed to require the City Council to approve any application solely because it meets the requirements of this Article, it being the intention of this Article that the City Council shall be entitled to exercise its authority in such applications to the fullest extent allowed by law. (b) The provisions of this Article shall be severable, it being the intention of the City Council that in the event one (1) or more of the provisions of this Article shall be adjudged to be invalid or unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Article shall be unaffected by such adjudication. COMMENT The changes to this section are stylistic only and have no substantive effect. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on this day of , 2008. CA-10503 November 14, 2007 R-14 Approved as to content: .. Approved as to legal sufficiency: ~J~dl~~' City Attorney's Office 11 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL 2 ZONING MAP BY THE ADDITION OF SUB- 3 AREAS 1, 2 and 3 OF THE 65-70 dB DNL 4 NOISE ZONE 5 6 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning 7 practice so require; 8 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 11 12 That the official zoning map of the City of Virginia Beach be, and hereby is, 13 amended to incorporate Sub-areas 1,2 and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, as shown 14 on a series of sheets marked and identified as such, and which have been displayed 15 before the City Council this date and are on file in the Department of Planning. 16 17 18 COMMENT 19 The ordinance amends the zoning map to incorporate and designate Sub-areas 1,2 and 3 of the 20 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. Each of the three sub-areas is subject to different restrictions on 2 1 discretionary development, as set forth in Section 1804 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 22 23 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on this _ day 24 of ,2008. 25 26 CA-10508 2'7 R-5 28 January 2, 2008 29 30 31 Approved as to Content: 32 33 34 35 36 Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: (;J~/f!)(~ City Attorney's Office 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE 2 PLAN BY INCORPORATING PROVISIONS PERTAINING 3 TO THE 65-70 dB DNL NOISE ZONE AND THE 4 INTERFACILlTY TRAFFIC AREA AND A MAP OF SUB- 5 AREAS 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE 65-70 dB DNL NOISE ZONE 6 7 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning 8 practice so require; 9 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 13 That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach be, and hereby is, 14 amended and reordained by the addition of the underlined portions, and the deletion of 15 the stricken portions, of the excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan shown on that 16 certain document entitled "EXHIBIT A - RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE 17 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY DOCUMENT CHAPTERS 1, 3 and 5, AND THE 18 PRINCESS ANNE CORRIDOR STUDY," such document being attached hereto and 19 made a part hereof, and which includes that certain map entitled "City of Virginia Beach 20 - Sub-areas 1, 2 and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone, January 2008", such map 21 having been exhibited to the City Council and on file in the Department of Planning. 22 23 COMMENT 24 25 The ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating provisions pertaining to 26 development in the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone and in the Interfacility Traffic Area. The 27 amendments also incorporate a map of Sub-areas 1, 2 and 3 of the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone into 28 the Comprehensive Plan. 29 30 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 31 day of ,2008. CA-10507 R-5 November 14, 2007 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: {GiLl/tap:!' /1 f4&Z/ City Attorney's Office EXHIBIT A RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY DOCUMENT CHAPTERS 1,3 AND 5, AND THE PRINCESS ANNE CORRIDOR STUDY Added text is underlined. Deleted text is stricken. "__"._'___~'~'~_"~"""'~~_'_'.___'_-________'__"_~,.______~,_.,___,______",___,,~_____'______A'_""_#___ Chapter 1 Introduction Page 13 A strong military presence in the community In 2004, the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk joined with the Navy and the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to craft a regional Joint Land Use Study. This study, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, was approved in May of 2005 by the regional JLUS Policy Committee and all participating cities. It addresses issues related to land use compatibility and clarifies the strategic and operational objectives of the participating jurisdictions and the Navy. It also embodies a series of recommendations regarding policies, regulations and programs designed to balance local government's land use planning responsibilities and the military's operational readiness objectives. Since 2005, the City has adopted and refined a series of Ocean a Land Use Conformity plans, policies and ordinances. These amendments to the Com?rehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance provide greater land use conformity with military operation requirements. Further, administrative procedures outlined in a 'Memorandum of Understanding' are in place and have significantlv increased the Navv's participation in the process of reviewing and commenting on pending discretionary developments within AICUZ affected areas. See map below that outlines noise zones, accident potential zones and special areas of review including the Resort Area, Interfacilitv Traffic Area and sub- areas within the 65-70 dB DNL Noise Zone. The City Council also created the Oceana Land Use Conformity Committee in 2006 to oversee progress in this area and to recommend ways to reduce the amount of non- conforming development around NAS Oceana - assuring that such actions do not adversely impact affected neighborhoods. The Citv's has also made significant progress toward the purchase. from willing sellers, of Qualified residential properties located in the Accident Potential Zone lIClear Zone and the Interfacilitv Traffic Area. 1 These measures demonstrate the citv's commitment to retain NAS Oceana as the Navy's east coast Master Jet Base by maximizing land use conformity while do in!! so in a manner that respects the inte!!ritv of established neighborhoods. Legend A1CUZ NOISE ZONES 65-70dS SUS-AREA ; 65-70dS SUB-AREA 2 _ 65.70d8 SUB.AREA 3 .~~ITA RURAL AREA RURAL AREA FLOODPLAINS 10c..YR FLOODPLAIN 2 Chapter 3 Primary Residential Area General Booth Boulevard Corridor Page 103 South General Booth Boulevard Corridor General Booth Boulevard is the primary road arterial serving the easternmost part of the Courthouse/Sandbridge Planning Area, north of the Green Line. Three distinctly different land use nodes exist along this arterial roadway: the Dam Neck Node; the Corporate Landing Area Node; and the Nimmo Church Node. Along this corridor and especially within these nodes development proposals must be consistent with the AICUZ Overlay Ordinance provisions that and should not contribute to strip commercial development, sprawl, or any disorderly arrangement of uses. Of particular importance is the need for future development in this corridor area to achieve a minimum reasonable density or intensity to be consistent with the provisions of the City AICUZ provisions and in order to protect and enhance the character of existing neighborhoods. Such residential development should include affonlaele workforce housing units. Page 106 Nimmo Parkway I General Booth Boulevard Intersection Area Future land use, site design and building architecture should complement the historic character of this area as defined by Nimmo Church. No structure in this area should exceed the 60' height of the Nimmo Church steeple. The tract on the northeast comer of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard should preserve and integrate into the site design the historic Hickman House, an 18th Century tavern. The portion of the parcel on which the house is situated and the surrounding property is suitable for a range of compatible residential and non-residential uses including neighborhood office, a quality restaurant and limited retail uses. The site and building design must respect and complement the integrity of the Hickman House. There should be no more than one ingress point on General Booth Boulevard and one on Nimmo Parkway. The tract on the southeast comer of Nimmo Parkway and General Booth Boulevard is planned for neighborhood office use for parcels located along General Booth Boulevard and single-family residential use behind the office use at densities compatible with the existing residential development in this area. If 13essible, roadways serving the proposed single family Elevelopffient sfloala cennect to tke eJdsting single family area to tke east. Vehicular access for proposed development should be limited to no more than one point on either Nimmo Parkway or General Booth Boulevard. Page 122 3 South Rudee Heights An attractive, low-intensity and non-residential plan of development is recommended for The type and design of lo',\' density single family dwellings on the property located north of the Virginia Marine Science :Maseum Aquarium and south of Rudee Heights.:. Such development should be carefully planned and designed to ensure land use compatibility with the adjoining museum aquarium and established residential areas. Chapter 5 Princess Anne !Transition Area Page l42-A Interfacility Traffic Area The western part of the Transition Area, comprising the 65 dB DNL or greater noise zones, is known as the Interfacility Traffic Area (IT A). It is an area subject to frequent military jet flyovers due to its location along a direct flight path between Naval Air Station Oceana and Alternate Laflaiag Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress. As such, land use planning policies have been established for the ITA aflEl that restrict additional residential development beyofla that alle'::ed 19y right. In Hlaffy eases, especially for properties zoned for agriculmral uses, this wauld mm.slate to no more that one lot per 15 acres of developable land. Further, these policies recognize appropriate development opportunities for those non-residential uses and align with the city's Oceana Land Use Conformity Program, the Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) provisions and general planning principles as outlined in this Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that a master plan for the ITA be conducted to provide more land use planning guidance regarding particular subareas. In an effort to reduce future incompatible development. the City has purchased a number of properties from willing sellers in the ITA. As of fall of 2007, over $3 Million have been used for this purpose. In addition, the u.s. Navv has received federal approval to appropriate of over $3 Million to advance land use conformity goals through voluntary purchase of property located in the ITA. The City Cauneil appro'led the HB:ffil3ton Roads Joint Land 1:lse SIDdy on May 10,2005. This docament inell:ldes a MemoraflaulR of Under staB ding betweea the City of Virginia Beach and U.S. Navy that, in part, provides guidelines for comprehensive plan adjustmeHts to certam. tracts af laBa in the ',vesteffi portion of the Princess /\.Il1'le/Tfaflsition .'\.rea identified by the Navy as tHe 'Imenaeility Traffic ..\fca'. The ITA is subject to a HigH '/olume of military jet traffic betweefl NAS OceaBa aBa :\LF Fentress ana the city recognizes the importaRce of incorporating appropriate planning policies for this area, consistent with the appro':ed JLUS provision, as f{)llo',vs: 4 . Within the ITA, Boise zone 75+ DNL retain the agricultural zeIliBg elf one resideBtial1et per 15 acres of developable land. . 'Nithifl the IT}.., noise zone 70 to 75+ DNL deIlsity of residential development should not exceeel OBe let per five acres ef eleyelopable land, dependiflg \:1pOB the elegree to whieh eaeh de';elopment proposal meets the City's aefiBed criteria. . '.Vitmn the IT:\, noise ZOBes less thafl 70 DNL, dsnstty efresideRtial de';elopmeRt sflOl:1ld Bot exceeel one let per acre ef ele'/elepable laBa, dependiflg l:lpon the degree to which each elevelof>meRt proposal meets the City's defiBed criteria. Princess Anne Corridor Study Page 24 VI. Land Use Recommendations These general recommendations apply to all Sub-Areas: 2. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) and Accident Potential Zone (APZ): New development or redevelopment should not include any housing, hotel or other uses that may be deemed by the city to be incompatible within applicable noise zones or APZ's. In further effort to address the U.S. Navv's AICUZ obiectives and those of the City's Oceana Land Use Conformity policies. residential densities proposed for developments within the Princess Anne Corridor Study Sub-Areas should not exceed those that exist within surrounding neighborhoods. 5 I I L. APPOINTMENTS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (CSB) RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (VBCDC) I I M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS , I N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT ********************************** PUBLIC COMMENTS Non-Agenda Items ********************************** CITY COUNCIL'S JANUARY 2008 SCHEDULE January 15, 2008 Workshop 4 - 6 PM January 22, 2008 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning February 19, 2008 Virginia Beach Convention Center 7 - 9 PM City-wide Town Meeting Storm water Plans and Funding ********* 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 0 l/08/20008gw \\ww,vbgov,com CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I DATE: December 11,2007 M B L D C E L E D H C R A W PAGE: I S I E J L N U N I T E D N 0 A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E E E A R I V 0 0 H L R Y S N F N A N D I CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING: A. MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL RESCHEDULED Annual Report TO 1/22/2008, Prescott Sherrod, Chair II CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING: A. PARKS/REC STRATEGIC PLANNING Cindy Curtis, PROCESS - Status Report Director III/ IV/ VNI E-I CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION CERTIFIED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F-I MINUTES Infonnal/Formal Sessions December 4, 2007 APPROVED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H MAYOR'S PRESENTATION DOLPHIN'S PROMISE MAYOR READ RESOLUTION Cindy Graff, President Col. Fred W, Greene, III, USA, Ret'd" Board Member I-I PUBLIC HEARINGS: NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD One speaker Acquisition cfR-o-W Newtown Rd to Birdneck Rd 2 INDIAN RIVER ROAD- Phase VII No speakers Acquisition of Easements Lynnhaven Pkwy to Elbow Rd 3 INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENTS No speakers Acquisition ofARP Easements: a, 3521 Robinson Rd b, 3501 Baum Rd CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I DATE: December 11,2007 M B L 0 C E L E 0 H C R A W PAGE: 2 S I E J L N U N I T E 0 N 0 A 0 H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E E .E A R I V 0 0 H L R Y S N F N A N 0 4 FY 2008 CAPITAL BUDGET-AMEND No speakers APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE $4,139,100 COPS Technology Grant Phase II JIK-I Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition, by ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y agreement or condemnatiOl, a portion of City CONSENT property for public transportatioipark/traiV utilities'parkingbther public purposes of abandoned Norfolk Southern Railroadr-o-w from Newtown Rd to Birdneck Rdeasements/ AUTHORIZE all documents 2 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition, by ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y agreement or condemnation, a portion of City CONSENT property for ro-w for Indian River Rd Phase VII/easements/AUTHORIZE all documents DISTRICT 1- CENTERVILLE 3 Ordinances toAUTHORIZEARP Easements: ADOPTED, BY 9-1 A Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE CONSENT a, David Lfferesa L. Winfree at 3521 Robinson Rd b, Barry DJPaula W. Knight at 3501 Baum Rd 4 Ordinance toAMEND City Code'ADD ~~ 24- ADOPTED AS 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 469 to 244 77 re Office of the City Auditor REVISED, BY (City Council Appointe*bolish Dept of Audit CONSENT, Services EFFECTIVE 02/16/2008 5 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acceptance of ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y property dedication in fee simple on North Palm CONSENT Ave from SHOREHA VEN ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., re Thalia Creek Greenway 6a Ordinances to AUTHORIZE encroachments into portions of City FO-W: TOWN CENTER ASSOC 7, L.L.C.,at ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Commerce and Market Sts re canopjporte- CONSENT cochere with signs DISTRICT 5- L YNNHA VEN b EARL LJMARO A. ROYER at 1460 DEFERRED TO 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Watersedge Dr re brick columnielectrical 1/22/2008, BY conduits'brick column mailbOll6 additional CONSENT brick columns DISTRICT 5- L YNNHA VEN (STAFF TO NOTIFY ALL AREA RESIDENTS OF DATE) I, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARYOFCOUNCUACnONS V 0 I DATE: December 11, 2007 M B L D C E L E D H C R A W PAGE: 3 S I E J L N U N I T E D N 0 A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E E E A R I V 0 0 H L R Y S N F N A N D 7 Ordinance reCOPS Interoperable ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Communications Grant re regional CONSENT communication: a. CREATE COPS Technology Gran~ Phase II CIP b, ACCEPT/APPROPRIA TE $3,000,000 from U.S. Dept of Justice c. APPROPRIATE $300,000 from City of Norfolk'$300,000 from City of Hampton! $200,000 from City of Portsmouth 8 Ordinance re Operation Smile Headquarters" ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Tidewater Community CoIlegeexpansion: CONSENT a, RENAME expansion project to Tidewater Community College ExpansionOperation Smile Headquarters project b, TRANSFER $3,500,000 to Tidewater Community College Expansiorf>peration Smile Headquarters project c, AUTHORIZE Term Sheet with Operation Smile L-Ia Enlarrrements ofNonconforminrr Use APPROVEDI 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CORY LANGLEY existing single-family CONDITIONED, dwelling.tluplex at800618008 Atlantic Ave BY CONSENT DISTRICT 5- L YNNHA VEN b NANCY RICHARDSON existing duplex at APPROVED/ 10-0 A Y y y y y y y y y y 7212 Atlantic Ave CONDITIONED, DISTRICT 5-LYNNHAVEN BY CONSENT 2 SOUTHEAST MARINE GROUP, LLC,re APPROVEDI 10-0 A Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y dry storage for boatstrailer~restauranVpooll MODIFIED AS recreational area at 2211 Old Pungo Ferry Rd: CONDITIONED DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE and a. Variance to ~5B of Site Plan OrdFloodplain AMENDED RelifSouthem Watersheds Mg..1t Ord to THAT THE allow fill BUILDING SHALL NOT b, Modification ofConditionson a CUP EXCEED SIXTY- approved April II, 1966, to add facilitieS THREE (63) parkingilandscaping FEET CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I DATE: December I I, 2007 M B L D C E L E D H C R A W PAGE: 4 S I E J L N U N I T E D N 0 A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E E E A R I V 0 0 H L R Y S N F N A N D 3a Modification of Conditions BROWN BUILDING CORP on a CUP MODIFIED AS 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y approved July 10,2007, re portecochere covered drop-off area at 4847 Dolton Dr PROFFERED, DISTRICT 2- KEMPSVILLE BY CONSENT b DELAWARE CORPORATION on a CUP MODIFIED AS 9-1 A Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y approved May 23, 2006, re apartment for PROFFERED, fulltime managertecreational vehicles during BY CONSENT construction at London Bridge and Harpers RsI DISTRICT 6- BEACH c W A W A, INC. on a CUP approved November MODIFIEDI 9-0 A Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y Y 26, 2002, re drive-up food servica'outdoortrash CONDITIONED B receptacle at 2954 Virginia Beach I1Wd WITH NO LEFT S DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN TURNS, BY T CONSENT A I N E D 4a Applications forConditional Use Permits WELLINGTON FARM, L.L.C, re boarding' APPROVEDI 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y training of horses at 3125 Hungarian Rl CONDITIONED, DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE BY CONSENT b OCEANA CHURCH OF CHRISTre church APPROVEDI 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y at 3073 Indian River RI CONDITIONED DISTRICT7 - PRINCESS ANNE c WILLIE DONALD MARTIN, JR., re auto APPROVEDI 9-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A repair garage at 1128 Barrs Rd CONDITIONED, B DISTRICT 4- BA YSIDE BY CONSENT S T A I N E D 5 Applications ofSYKES REAL APPROVEDI 8-2 A Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y PROPERTIES, L.L.C~ at Birdneck Rd' CONDITIONED, Beautiful St BY CONSENT DISTRICT 6- BEACH. a, Chanf!e ofZoninJ?District Classification from R-IO Residential District to Conditional 1- I Light Industrial District b, Conditicnal Use Permitre a bulk storage yard CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCU ACnONS V 0 I DATE: December 11,2007 M B L D C E L E D H C R A W PAGE: 5 S I E J L N U N I T E D N 0 A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N 0 R E S 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E E E A R I V 0 0 H L R Y S N F N A N D 6 ANW ARUL ISLAM/SHAHANA ISLAM APPROVED AS 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CoZfrom 0-2 to Conditional BI re retaiVoffice PROFFERED, building'parkingAandscapingat 1308/1314 BY CONSENT Kempsville Rd DISTRICT 2- KEMPSVILLE M APPOINTMENTS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD RESCHEDULED B Y C 0 N S E N S U S RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION- RAC RESCHEDULED B Y C 0 N S E N S U S VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY RESCHEDULED B Y C 0 N S E N S U S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION- VBCDC WORKFORCE HOUSING ADVISORY RESCHEDULED B Y C 0 N S E N S U S COMMITTEE ADD HAMPTON ROADS ECONOMIC 9-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y ON DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE- HREDA Dorothy L. Wood APPOINTED Unexpired term through 12/31/08 0 ADJOURNMENT: 7:11 PM CITY COUNCIL'S SCHEDULE 2008 January 2 NO CITY COUNCU SESSIONS January 8 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning, Open Dialogue January 22 Briefing, Informal, Formal, Planning February 19 Location to be Announced -7:15 pm Stormwater Plans and Funding