The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMARCH 11, 2008 AGENDACITY 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 I BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne — District 7 REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 JOHN E. UHRIN, Beach — District 6 RON A. VILLANUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITYMANAGER -JAMES K. SPORE CI7YA7TORNEY- LESLIEL. LILLEY CITY CLERK - RUTH HODGES FRASER, MMC I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE: (757) 385-4303 FAX (757) 385-5669 E- MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com 11 MARCH 2008 - Conference Room - 3:00 PM A. HEALTH CARE PROGRAM PLAN Susie Walston, Co -Chair, Benefits Executive Committee II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA IV. INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - Conference Room - 4:30 PM V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Randy Orwig Pastor, Tidewater United Methodist Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA I. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION March 4, 2007 1. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to enter into a Lease Agreement with Ranco Road Associates, L.C., to relocate the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) administration office. 2. Resolution to AUTHORIZE a non-binding term sheet re PHASE IV of the TOWN CENTER project: requesting approval of the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority; and, AUTHORIZING the development of supplemental project documents. J. PLANNING Application of RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION for the closing, vacating and discontinuing of a portion of Cleveland Street between Witchduck and Newtown Roads to incorporate the area into their adjacent development site. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE RECOMMENDATION DENIAL 2. Variance to §5b of the Site Plan Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirement of the Floodplain Regulations for JASON and AMY PRZYMUZALA at 601 Cypress Avenue re a second story addition to their existing residence. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3. Applications for Conditional Use Permits: ti 0 KATHERINE M. GRIER, re a church in a Shopping Center at 1628 Independence Boulevard, Suite 1504. DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL BOB SIMEONE re one (1) bulk storage cargo trailer at 2633 Production Road. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 4. Application of PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC, for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to 0-1 Office District re development of a office building with associated parking and landscaping at 3021 Holland Road. DISTRICT 7 —PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL K. L. N APPOINTMENTS BIKEWAYS and TRAILS ADVISORY COMMISSION COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL UNFINISHED BUSINESS I. CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS SCHEDULE FOR 2008: a. July 1 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning b. July 8 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning C. November 4 Cancel all sessions — Election Day d. November 11 Cancel all sessions — City Holiday e. November 18 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning f. November 25 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning g. December 2 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning h. December 9 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning i. December 16 Cancel all sessions j. December 23 Cancel all sessions k. December 30 Cancel all sessions NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN WORKSHOPS April 8 (Workshop) April 15 (Workshop) April 17 (Public Hearing) April 22 (Workshop) April 22 (Public Hearing) April 29 (Workshop) May 6 (Reconciliation Workshop) May 13 (Adoption) Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Green Run High School — 6 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Chamber — 6 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Council Chamber — 6 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ONE -DAY RETREAT APRIL 21, 2008 8:30 a.m. -- 5:30 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM TOWN 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 Agenda 3/11/2008AFB www.vbgov.com v.com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - 3:00 PM A. HEALTH CARE PROGRAM PLAN Susie Walston, Co -Chair, Benefits Executive Committee II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS III. REVIEW OF AGENDA IV. INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - Conference Room - 4:30 PM V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Randy Orwig Pastor, Tidewater United Methodist Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION March 4, 2007 arsolutiott CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. H. CONSENT AGENDA ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION 1. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to enter into a Lease Agreement with Ranco Road Associates, L.C., to relocate the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) administration office. 2. Resolution to AUTHORIZE a non-binding term sheet re PHASE IV of the TOWN CENTER project: requesting approval of the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority; and, AUTHORIZING the development of supplemental project documents. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with Ranco Road Associates, L.C. to relocate the Emergency Medical Services Administration Offices MEETING DATE: March 11, 2008 ■ Background: In 1983, the Department of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) moved into the former Virginia Beach Town Hall Building on Arctic Avenue. At that time EMS had 6 full-time employees and 340 volunteers. Over the ensuing years, the size and duties of the department have grown. EMS now supports 25 training and administration staff (both full-time and contractual), 36 career field providers and over 700 rescue squad volunteers. The 66 -year-old EMS headquarters facility is approximately 3,700 square feet and 'is in poor condition. EMS also uses a portable building to house some of its employees and portable containers to store materials. Formal reviews by the City's Space Management Committee revealed that the existing office space is inadequate to meet the EMS needs. Additionally, EMS' facility does not meet current standards for ADA accessibility or safety/fire protection. Due to the possible development of the Dome Site including the former Town Hall parcel, it is advantageous to relocate the EMS office and demolish the building. The demolition cost is expected to be approximately $15,000, depending on the amount of asbestos to be abated. After two years of searching, a suitable, available rental site has been identified on Viking Drive near Lynnhaven Mall. The site is owned by Ranco Road Associates, L.C., and offers the required square footage in move -in -ready condition. It offers a central location, first -floor location, with easy access to the interstate. Ranco is willing to enter into a lease with the City in accordance with the attached Summary of Terms. If City Council authorizes the lease, the immediate cost for FY 2007-08 would be $25,552, representing two (2) months' rent payments under the proposed lease. This amount would be transferred from the Reserve for Contingencies. The balance of the Reserve for Contingencies as of February 29, 2008 (before this transfer) is: $318,146. The full -year cost of the proposed lease for FY 2008-09 will be $154,012. This amount will be included in the FY 2008-09 Operating Budget. ■ Considerations: Estimates to address immediate maintenance issues at EMS' current location are in excess of $100,000. EMS requires additional office, meeting, classroom and storage space to effectively support services for its members and volunteers. ■ Public Information: Advertisement of the City Council Agenda. EMS members will be notified via email and newsletter. ■ Alternatives: The EMS staff could remain in their current location if needed repairs are made. This option is not recommended as the repair investment would be wasted when the dome site is redeveloped. The City could consider building a new office space for EMS staff, but this option would take longer and require more funding in the short term. ■ Recommendations: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement to relocate the EMS headquarters to rental property, requiring a transfer $25,552 from the Reserve for Contingencies. ■ Attachments: Ordinance; Summary of Terms; Location Map. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement Submitting Department/Agency: EMS/Management Services City Manag 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 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH RANCO ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.C., TO RELOCATE THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION' OFFICES WHEREAS, the Virginia Beach Emergency Medical Services (EMS) administrative personnel are in a facility that requires significant maintenance; and WHEREAS, the EMS personnel require replacement office space to conduct administrative functions, recruitment and training programs in a central location; and WHEREAS, Ranco Road Associates, L.C. ("Ranco"), a Virginia limited liability company, owns a suitable facility available for lease in Pinehurst Centre, located at 477 Viking Drive; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach supports leasing 8,287 square feet of office space from Ranco to relocate the EMS administrative personnel, in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the cost of the proposed lease in FY2007-08 will be $25,552, which amount is available in the Reserve for Contingencies. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a lease agreement with Ranco for the purpose of leasing office space for use by the EMS administrative personnel, in a form of lease containing substantially the same terms set forth in the attached Summary of Terms and containing such other terms and conditions as deemed satisfactory by the City Manager and the City Attorney. Accepted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of , 2008. CA10558 R-1 2/29/08 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\W pdocs\D027\P003\00050297.DOC Approved as to Conten Approved as to Legal Sufficiency Department of anagement/Services City Attomey's ffice SUMMARY OF TERMS Lease for EMS Administrative Personnel LESSOR: Ranco Road Associates, L.C. LESSEE: City of Virginia Beach PREMISES: 8,287 square feet of office space at Pinehurst Centre, 477 Viking Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia, together with the right to use, in common with other tenants, parking facilities and elevators and other amenities of the building. TERM: 3 -year lease starting May 1, 2008, with two 1 -year renewal options. RENT: $153,309.50 per year ($18.50/SF), with a 2.75% escalation each year, payable as follows: Original Lease Term: 5/2008 — 4/2009 $12,775.79 per month 5/2009 — 4/2010 $13,127.13 per month 5/2010 — 4/2011 $13,488.13 per moth Option years: 5/2011 — 4/2012 $13,859.05 per month 5/2012 — 4/2013 $14,240.17 per month Rent includes all utilities, including water, sewer, HVAC, and custodial services OTHER PROVISIONS: • Lessee will use the Premises for use as an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) administrative office and other business purposes as related to recruitment and training programs or general usage without restriction. • Lessee will keep, repair, and maintain the Leased Premises at its expense. • Lessor will keep, repair, and maintain the Common Areas at its expense. Lessee's obligations are subject to appropriation by City Council. • The City may terminate the Lease at the end of any original or renewal term with 180 days written notice to Lessor. • Such other terms and provisions as deemed satisfactory by the City Manager and the City Attorney f fig,, �.. lL- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ITEM: Resolution approving a non-binding term sheet relating to Phase IV of the Town Center Project, requesting approval by the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority and authorizing the development of supplemental project documents MEETING DATE: March 11, 2008 ■ Background: The Town Center Project (the "Project") has been a long-term priority for the City. The City Council first recognized the importance of the Project in the Central Business District of the City when it adopted the Comprehensive Plan on November 4, 1997. At its February 8, 2000 meeting, the City Council approved a Development Agreement for Phase I of the Project containing the rights and obligations of the Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority") and Town Center Associates, L.L.C. (the "Developer"). Phase I of the Project, comprised of a 272,000 -square -foot office tower, 109,000 square feet of commercial space, a 176 -room hotel, an 18,000 -square -foot bank headquarters building, a 1,284 -car public parking garage, and public streets, sidewalks and utilities, has been completed. On June 3, 2003, the City Council approved the Phase II Development Agreement containing the rights and obligations of the Authority and the Developer with respect to Phase II of the Project. One of the blocks associated with the second phase of the Project, the Dick's Sporting Goods store (formerly Galyans), opened in April of 2004 with an adjoining 574 -space public parking facility, and 18,000 square feet of retail space. Other development included a 10 -story 341 -unit luxury apartment complex with an 858 -space public parking facility, a public plaza and 194,000 square feet of office/retail/entertainment space. Phase II of the Project is complete. On September 13, 2005, the City Council approved the Phase III Development Agreement containing the rights and obligations of the Authority and the Developer with respect to Phase III of the Project. One of the Blocks associated with the third phase of the Project, the Westin Hotel and Condominiums, consisting of a 236 -room luxury hotel and 119 residential condominiums, with an adjoining 947 -space parking facility (containing public and private elements), and 24,000 -square -foot meeting space opened in December of 2007. Another Block associated with the third phase of the Project consisting of 15,534 square feet of retail space and fifty-six (56) residential condominiums opened in January of 2008. Other Phase III development includes 25,000 square feet of first -floor commercial space, which should be complete within the coming months. ■ Considerations: Phase IV of Town Center will be a single -block (Block 2) of mixed-use development consisting of the following elements: Single Block, Multi -facility, Mixed-use Development • Main Office Tower: • 21 Stories • Main Lobby, Retail (First Floor) • Parking Garage, 650 Spaces (8 levels) • Office Space (12 levels above garage) • Side Building: • 4 Stories • Ground Floor Retail • Office • Attached to main office tower ■ Information: Public information for this item will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: The Phase IV Documents reflect the City's ongoing commitment to the long-term priority of developing a Town Center for the City. There are certainly other alternatives to development of the Central Business District. However, few if any alternatives accomplish Council's stated goals for the area or provide the level of quality proposed. ■ Recommendations: Approve the Phase IV Term Sheet relating to Phase IV of the Town Center (Central Business District; request approval and execution by the City of Virginia Beach Development Authority; and authorize the development of supplemental project documents. ■ Attachments: Resolution, Summary of Terms, Project Map Recommended Action: Approval of attached Resolution Submitting Department/Agency: Economic Development City Manager: �,-7�6 1 RESOLUTION APPROVING A NON-BINDING 2 TERM SHEET RELATING TO PHASE IV OF 3 THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT, 4 REQUESTING APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF 5 VIRGINIA BEACH DEVLOPMENT 6 AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING THE 7 DEVELOPMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL 8 PROJECT DOCUMENTS 9 10 WHEREAS, on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") and the City 11 of Virginia Beach Development Authority (the "Authority"), the City Manager and City 12 staff have engaged in extensive negotiations with representatives of Armada/Hoffler 13 Development Company, L.L.C., and its affiliates, regarding the continued development 14 of a Central Business District Project known as "The Town Center of Virginia Beach (the 15 "Project"); 16 17 WHEREAS, the Project is a development arrangement between the 18 Authority and Town Center Associates, L.L.C. (the "Developer'), for a mixed-use 19 commercial development utilizing the structure of an economic development park in the 20 B -3A Pembroke Central Business Core District, an area of the City that is zoned to 21 optimize development potential for a mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented, urban activity 22 center with mid -to high-rise structures that contain numerous types of uses, including 23 business, retail, residential, cultural, educational and other public and private uses; 24 25 WHEREAS, construction of Phases I and II of the Project are complete, 26 and Phase III is substantially complete; 27 28 WHEREAS, the Developer has worked with the City Manager and City 29 staff and has proposed a comprehensive development plan for Phase IV of the Project; 30 31 WHEREAS, the Developer has worked with the City Manager and City 32 staff to develop a non-binding Term Sheet dated March 7, 2008 (the "Phase IV Term 33 Sheet"), which outlines (a) a comprehensive development plan for Phase IV of the 34 Project, (b) minor modifications to Phase II of the Project and (c) the proposed 35 responsibilities of the City, the Authority and the Developer with respect to Phase IV of 36 the Project; 37 38 WHEREAS, the finalization of the transactions contemplated by the Phase 39 IV Term Sheet shall all be contingent on the successful completion of the "Beacon 40 Exchange" as set forth in the Phase IV Term Sheet; 41 42 WHEREAS, a summary of the Phase IV Term Sheet is attached to this 43 Resolution as Exhibit A and a complete copy of the Term Sheet was provided to City 44 Council prior to its March 11, 2008 meeting; 45 46 WHEREAS, the obligations of the Authority outlined in the Phase IV Term 47 Sheet will be supported by a support agreement between the City and the Authority (the 48 "Phase IV Support Agreement"), with the traditional public infrastructure costs of the 49 Project to be funded in part through the City's CIP and in part through the Authority's 50 Economic Development Investment Program funds; 51 52 WHEREAS, the Phase IV Support Agreement between the City and the 53 Authority would be structured to be paid, subject to annual appropriation, by the 54 available revenue from the TIF Fund and a special tax district; 55 56 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Phase IV of the Project will 57 stimulate the City's economy, increase public revenues, enhance public amenities and 58 further the City's development objectives for the Central Business District; and 59 60 WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the Authority approve and 61 execute the Phase IV Term Sheet and pursue the development of supplemental project 62 documents to be negotiated in substantial conformity with the terms outlined in the 63 Phase IV Term Sheet, including but not limited to a development agreement and the 64 Phase IV Support Agreement. 65 66 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 67 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 68 69 1. The City Council approves the non-binding Phase IV Term Sheet 70 dated March 7, 2008, (the "Phase IV Term Sheet") between the City of Virginia Beach 71 Development Authority (the "Authority" and Town Center Associates, LLC (the 72 "Developer"), a summary of which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, which 73 outlines a comprehensive development plan for Phase IV of the Project and minor 74 modifications to Phase II of the Project. 75 76 2. The City Council requests and recommends that the Authority 77 adopt a Resolution consistent with this Resolution approving the Term Sheet. and 78 authorizing its execution. 79 80 3. On behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, the City Manager and the 81 City Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the development of 82 supplemental Project documents necessary and appropriate to implement Phase IV of 83 the Project substantially as outlined in the Phase IV Term Sheet. 84 85 4. The City Manager is directed to return the final supplemental 86 Project documents for approval by City Council and the Authority for authorization to 87 execute the Phase IV Support Agreement so that the Authority can then proceed to the 88 next phase of the Project. 89 90 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 91 day of , 2008. 1► CA -10555 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D005\P003\00050893. DOC 3/6/08 R-1 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Economic Development APPROVED TO G L SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney EXHIBIT A SUMMARY OF TERMS- PHASE IV TOWN CENTER Phase IV of the Town Center Project will consist of a single -block mixed use development on Block 2 of Town Center (presently the Beacon Building) 1. Scone of Proposed Improvements Single Block, Multi -facility, Mixed-use Development • Main Building: 21 Stories - Parking Garage, 650 Spaces (8 levels) Office Tower (12 levels above garage) Retail, First Floor • Side Building: 4 Stories, attached to main tower similar to Pender & Coward Building in Block 4 2. Developer Obligations A. Purchase land required for development and construction of Phase IV Tower from Development Authority (at Authority's cost of acquisition). B. Construct all improvements: • Main Office Tower • First Floor Retail • Parking Garage • Side Building • Streetscapes C. Estimated Private Investment: $72 million 3. Authority Obligations A. Pay for Infrastructure Improvements: • Estimated Cost: $650,000-$850,000 • To include streetscapes, utilities, traffic signals B. Lease 1 floor in new 21 -story Main Office Tower • Leased Area: — 25,000 square feet • VBDA's rent— $30.50 to $31.00/SF or $762,500-$775,000 per year • Lowest rent in tower, other than anchor tenant C. Purchase Parking Garage: • Estimated Cost: $22-28 million • Exact price to be agreed on before execution of development agreement. 4. Other Terms A. Modification to Option Land Agreement from Phase II B. Phase IV is contingent on completion of Beacon Exchange J. PLANNING Application of RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION for the closing, vacating and discontinuing of a portion of Cleveland Street between Witchduck and Newtown Roads to incorporate the area into their adjacent development site. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE RECOMMENDATION DENIAL 2. Variance to §5b of the Site Plan Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet the requirement of the Floodplain Regulations for JASON and AMY PRZYMUZALA at 601 Cypress Avenue re a second story addition to their existing residence. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3. Applications for Conditional Use Permits: a. KATHERINE M. GRIER, re a church in a Shopping Center at 1628 Independence Boulevard, Suite 1504. DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL b. BOB SIMEONE re one (1) bulk storage cargo trailer at 2633 Production Road. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 4. Application of PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC, for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to 0-1 Office District re development of a office building with associated parking and landscaping at 3021 Holland Road. DISTRICT 7 —PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber a City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive Tuesday, March = 2008, at 6:00 p.m. The following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE The Runnymede Corporation Application: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Cleveland Street. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Precision Measurements, Inc. Application: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural to Conditional 0-1 Office at 3021 Holland Road (GPIN 1495232369). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being within the Strategic Growth Area 11, suitable for low -intensity retail and service uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this rezoning is to develop offices. AICUZ is Greater than 75 dB Ldn and APZ-2. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE Katherine M. Grier Application: Conditional Use Perm for a church at 1628 Independence Boulevard, Suite 1504 (GPIN 1479237563). AICUZ is Less than 65 dB Ldn. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH Bob Simeone Application: Conditional Use Permit for storage trailers at 2633 Production Road (GPIN 1496880032). AICUZ is Greater than 75 dB Ldn and APZ-2. Jason and Amy Przymuzala Application: Variance to, Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations at 601 Cypress Avenue (GPIN 2427023772). All interested citizens are invited to attend. Ruth Hodges Fraser, MMC City Clerk Copies of the proposed ordinances, resolutions and amendments are on file and may be examined in the Department of Planning or online at Ibp://www.vbgov.com/Rgs For information call 385-4621. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired ano need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 38S-4303. Beacon Feb. 24 & March 2, 2008 18352008 g0k Z J CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: In the matter of closing, vacating and discontinuing a portion of that certain unimproved street known as "CLEVELAND STREET (60' R/W) (M.B. 116, PG. 42)" as shown on that certain plat entitled "EXHIBIT SHOWING A PORTION OF CLEVELAND STREET TO BE CLOSED (M.B. 234, PG. 43) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE. MEETING DATE: March 11, 2008 ■ Background: The applicant, Runnymede Corporation, requests to close a portion of a 60 foot wide, unimproved street that runs in a westerly direction from the terminus of the improved portion of Cleveland Street to an existing borrow pit located to the west. The applicant desires to incorporate the closed area into the adjacent parcels to create a larger, consolidated development site. ■ Considerations: The Comprehensive Plan land use policies for Strategic Growth Area 3 recommend that the remaining unimproved portion of Cleveland Street, between the existing portions of the roadway that run from Witchduck Road and Newtown Road, should be connected. This roadway connection is also shown on the Master Transportation Plan. The Master Transportation Plan is currently being revised as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and will include the role of Cleveland Street as part of planned improvements to 1-264 (discussed below), which rely on the continued availability of the subject right-of-way. The Cleveland Street connection described above is currently unfunded, and the cost of building the connecting street over a borrow pit may significantly increase the costs of such a connection as years pass. Increased financial cost due to the existing environmental conditions of the borrow pit site coupled with the fact that Interstate -264 is scheduled for widening into a portion of the proposed Cleveland Street increases the obstacles to connecting Cleveland Street. Staff finds, however, that it is vitally important to work toward improving the transportation system in this area, particularly as development stimulated by Town Center progresses westward. It is important that the City not abandon the current transportation plans without an alternative plan to improve the transportation network. Staff finds that improving the transportation network, especially in this area, is vital to the health of the City, and the City should maintain the opportunity to utilize this segment of Cleveland Street to improve transportation. In that vein, The Runnymede Corporation Page 2of2 City and State transportation staffs are currently looking at options to improve the City's transportation network with the addition of a flyover of Greenwich Road on the south side of 1-264 onto Cleveland Street on the north side of 1-264 in the vicinity of the proposed street closure. A detailed update on the status of this flyover option is provided at the conclusion of the attached report. VDOT has determined the concept to be sound, and it is likely be part of the future proposed amendments to the Master Transportation Plan as a component of the overall Comprehensive Plan update. The Viewers met and expressed concerns with closing this portion of Cleveland Street, and recommended that it not be closed. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to deny this request. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Location Map Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends denial. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manage . SV— ' � ' THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION Agenda Item 10 January 9, 2008 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Leslie Bonilla REQUEST: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of unimproved right-of-way. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on the west side of Cleveland Street and extending approximately 600 feet in a westerly direction. COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 2-KEMPSVILLE SITE SIZE: 35,882 square feet APPLICATION HISTORY: The request was deferred at the July 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to address outstanding issues. The Planning Commission recommended indefinite deferral of this request on October 10, 2007 to allow time for an update regarding proposed concept plans for the flyover of Greenwich Road on the south side of 1-264 onto Cleveland Street in the vicinity of the proposed street closure. An update of this proposed flyover along with a flyover concept plan is provided on page 4 of this report. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests to close a portion of 60 foot wide, unimproved street that runs in a westerly direction from the terminus of the improved Cleveland Street to Interstate -264 for development of the site and adjoining property to house a financial Institution headquarters. This "paper street" has never been an active public right-of-way and is currently wooded. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped vacant site THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION Agenda Item 10 Page 1 SURROUNDING LAND North: . Undeveloped wooded parcel / 1-1 Light Industrial District USE AND ZONING: South: . Undeveloped wood parcel / 1-1 Light Industrial District East: • Improved Cleveland Street • Industrial and office buildings / 1-1 Light Industrial District West: . 1-264 • Borrow pit / 0-2 Office District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The site is heavily wooded. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): The City of Virginia Beach Master Transportation Plan includes the future extension of Cleveland Street from Clearfield Avenue west to complete the connection from Witchduck Road to Newtown Road. Closure of this portion of Cleveland Street right-of-way would be contradictory to the current Master Transportation Plan. The MTP is currently being revised as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and will include planned improvements to 1-264. WATER: No permanent structures may be situated over the existing 30 -foot public utility easement running through the property. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: The existing right-of-way is required for Public Works / Engineering and Public Works / Operations to gain access to (for inspection and maintenance of) the existing City owned 25 acre stormwater management pond, located just west of the existing Cleveland Street right-of-way. PUBLIC WORKS (ENGINEERING): A portion of Cleveland Street right-of-way will be required for the proposed widening and improvements to Interstate 264 (1-264). The applicant has worked with Public Works (Engineering) to establish a 55 -foot reservation measured from 1-264 to insure the City does not close the portion of Cleveland Street that would be required for the 1-264 widening. The proposed street closure does not close land that will be required for the 1-264 widening project. PRIVATE UTILITIES: Dominion Power, Hampton Roads Sanitation District, and Virginia Natural Gas have no objections to the proposed street closure. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this request. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION Agenda Item 10 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan land use policies for Strategic Growth Area 3 recommend that the remaining unimproved portion of Cleveland Street, between the stubs from Wtchduck and Newtown Roads, should be connected. The Master Transportation Plan, however, is currently being revised as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and will include planned improvements to 1-264 (discussed below) that rely on the continued availability of the subject right-of-way. Evaluation: Staff recommends denial of this street closure request. The proposed street closure is not in keeping with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Master Transportation Plan. The Virginia Beach Master Transportation Plan recommends the future extension of Cleveland Street from Clearfield Avenue west to complete the connection from Witchduck Road to Newtown Road. Staff recognizes the importance of improving the transportation network by increasing the number and capacity of east -west and north -south streets that run throughout the city. Given the importance of improving the current transportation network, staff recommends against giving up public right-of-way which could potentially be utilized in the future to improve the City's transportation network. Staff recognizes there are obstacles to developing the site as planned in the Master Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Plan. The Cleveland Street connection as recommended by City plans is currently unfunded. Staff further acknowledges the financial cost of building a street over an existing or previously utilized borrow pit may significantly increase costs of the Cleveland Street extension project. Increased financial cost due to the existing environmental conditions of the borrow pit site coupled with the fact that Interstate -264 is scheduled for widening and is planned to extend into a portion of the proposed Cleveland Street, greatly reduces the likelihood that Cleveland Street will connect as planned within the Master Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Plan. Even with these obstacles, Staff finds that it is important to work toward improving the transportation system in this area. It is also important that the City not abandon the current transportation plans without an alternative plan to improve the transportation network. After careful analysis of the proposed street closure and City and State plans, staff finds that closure of this segment of Cleveland Street would further reduce the likelihood of improving the transportation in this area without providing an alternative transportation improvement option. Staff finds that improving the transportation network, especially in this area, is vital to the health of the City and the City should maintain the opportunity to utilize this segment of Cleveland Street to improve transportation. City and State transportation staffs are currently looking at options to improve the City's transportation network with the addition of a flyover of Greenwich Road on the south side of 1-264 onto Cleveland Street in the vicinity of the proposed street closure. A detailed update on the status of this flyover option is provided on the following page. Although the concept is just that, the concept has been determined to be sound, and will likely be part of the future amendment to the Master Transportation Plan as a component of the overall Comprehensive Plan update. The City should preserve its options regarding the Cleveland Street right-of-way and not approve the proposed street closure requested by the applicant. The Viewers met and expressed concerns with closing this portion of Cleveland Street. As such, staff recommends denial. THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION Agenda Item 10 Page 3 PROPOSED FLYOVER PROJECT UPDATE The Virginia Department of Transportation intends to move the proposed flyover project, as shown below, forward into preliminary design based on the concurrence gained by Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach on November 21 st. This concurrence, among other things, includes the following design elements: Improvements at the Witchduck Road interchange in accordance with Alternative 3. Alternative 3 includes the 1-264 eastbound on and off -ramps in the southwest quadrant of the interchange, as well as maintaining the Witchduck Road connection with Grayson Road in its existing location. Alternative 3 also requires removing Greenwich Road from its current tie-in point on Witchduck Road and relocating the roadway to tie-in with Cleveland Street on the north side of 1-264. Additional right-of-way and easements will be required for the Greenwich to Cleveland crossover from the adjacent landowners. The City of Virginia Beach should work to preserve this corridor from development with the understanding that the Virginia Department of Transportation will not be in a position to acquire any property until the National Environmental Rfsttestti9R Policy Act (NEPA) document is complete, the project has been through the official public hearing/Commonwealth Transportation Board approval process, and the right-of-way phase is fully funded. As agreed on November 21, the City of Virginia Beach will also work to reprioritize Witchduck Phase 11 so as to have that project completed at a date determined by the detailed traffic analysis. The City has also agreed to provide $5 million in funding for the Greenwich to Cleveland crossover. It should be noted that although the above mentioned concepts have been agreed upon, the Department of Transportation still needs to go through the NEPA process and detailed design, and subsequently, there could be future modifications/refinements. GREENWICH ROAD OVERPASS OF 1-264 AUGUST 2007 THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION .Agenda Item 10 Page 4 Next Steps/Schedule Reaardinq the Proposed Flyover The Virginia Department of Transportation is planning on showing the proposed improvements to the public at a Citizen's Information Meeting tentatively scheduled for February 21, 2008. The revised scope of work is not fully funded. Currently, Virginia Department of Transportation has $166 million allocated in the FY08-13 Six -Year Improvement Program (SYIP), and based on the revised scope estimate, an additional $50-100 million will be needed. The Suffolk District of VDOT notes that it will be working aggressively on this issue, as this is a very important project to the region. THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION Agenda Item 10 Page 5 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION Agenda Item 10 Page 6 ROWAN C47HOUC DIOCESE ICOX CABLE F HAMPTON OF RICHMOND ROADS; INC (D.B. 2774, PG 2113) (O.B. 3002 PG 721) LOT A-1 LOT 1-6 GPIN 11467- 56-G. 7111 GPM( 11467-55-8570 I \ FIELD ARFIED LOCA71ON OF CITY OF I NORFOIX WRG/IA 30' RAW WATER \ UNE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF UNSPECIFIED W 07H (M.B. 186, PG. 3). \ VARIABLE INDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT s (D.B. 2978, PG 1980), (M.S. 218, PG. 77) a 30' PUBLIC U71UTY EASEAIfE ENr THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION TO E CITY DMCA7EDaNIA B�EA N17H L=35.20' N� (0.8. 2222,T2PA 722) \ THE RECORDADON OF THE I R=20.00' y \ RESUBDIWSION PLAT. (M.B. 234, PG. 42) \ o N� GPIN 11467-55-2459 L=31.64' to !XE iiZAAf7 S*rr (dt7' IP/wJ w� ca (M.B. 116, PG. 42) GN 0� v �, N 3475439.9603 a 145' 42 E 12164966.7426 6' RMVA71ON STRIP R 180• FOR STREET IWDDVWG \ 9 L` S 64'30'02" E (M.B. 213, PG. 1) 35.75' `78. C3 5 00 =',19.12 Ft'681.25 N 3475316.1765 4 V C1 E V2165588.3610 R=5914.58' Lz253.97' L ,B \ \ 6' RESERVA710N STRIP 60. C �` C6\ FOR STREET NIDENING ;679;12.:: :::::::::::::::::..:.. (M.B. 213, PG. 1) N 00"18'34" W •�- �� 5.56' N 64'30 02" W POR77ON OF CIEYEIAAIDTO RE N 6.73' AREA STREET = 10,4ASF.D N 6430'02" W OR 0.240 AG 'Z7J% 3 •39 30'x40' EASEMENT FOR RELOCATED WA7ER MAIN N CITY OF WRGMMA BEACH (D.B. 906. PG 730) THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORA17ON (D.B. 1323, PG. 179) (HWY. P.B. 3A, PG. 35i, 351A & 3516) PARCEL 8 (M.B. 78, PG. 31) (14.8. 116, PG 42) GPIN 11467-45-8650 GPIN 11467-55-6189 A CP Q Z = N� Ny 2 5� DENOTES PORTION OF CLEVELAND DWISIT SHOVING rn STREET TO BE CLOSED. A PWI70N OF y 9 AREA - 25,419 S.F. OR 0.584 AC. a.Ei/QM STREET O yn DENOTES 55' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (M.B. 234, K 4J) o LjRESERVATION TO BE ESTABLISHED. WRGWU BEACH, WRGNIA w A AREA - 38,876 S.F. OR 0.892 AC. JUNE 1, 1007 y 9 MSA, P.C. Landscape Architecture • Planning 7-1 Surveying • Engineering AZi Environmental Sciences 5033 ROUSEDRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 2J462J708 PHONE (757) 490-9264 - FAX (757) 490-0634 SHEET 1 OF 2 JOB# 06172 PLAT RECORDED IN ZONED: 11 DATE: 06-08--07 1 SCALE: 1'700' 1 OWN BY: JCA (M.B. 234, PG. 43) SURVEY OF AREA TO BE CLOSED THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION Agenda Item 10 Page 7 # Date Description Action 1 11/14/83 07/02/91 Street Closure Street Closure Denied Denied 2 10/10/88 02/22/94 Conditional Use Permit (bulk storage) Conditional Use Permit (expansion of home fora ed Granted Granted 3 02/22/94 Conditional Use Permit church addition Granted 4 10/23/89 Conditional Use Permit auto repair) Granted 5 08/23/94 Conditional Use Permit communications tower Granted 6 06/09/98 Conditional Use Permit communications tower Granted 7 01/14/97 Conditional Use Permit communications tower Granted 8 10/23/01 10/24/06 Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle sales) Modification of Conditions Granted Granted 9 05/23/88 Conditional Use Permit auto sales and repair) Granted 10 05/25/93 10/24/06 Conditional Use Permit (parking and storage in connection with sales and repair of motor vehicles) Zoning Change R-7.5 to conditional B-2 Granted Granted 11 01/11/05 1 Zoning Change R-7.5 to conditional B-2 Granted ZONING HISTORY THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION Agenda Item 10 Page 8 r' I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APnICANT 013 -CLOSURE If the aprn;��,Int --w a "rporwion, lvm 01AMess, C;» of 'ver untrSorporated 1he 101474,wing *?i3 me f0tiQwec t Inv ravrlm4 vlail vffficc'�S, 'rVantsm trus,,�ees :Ytrzar eta: ne#("w IAIv 2 s-t5l all businesses that have a rwen!-sunudry' cc bkAtn� v U ia, onshup wit', Vis wpx-art I'A"ach �tsr i! nc,;xssaq� M '>L-,* refetf tfeapps; ,.- ntislvol*accKpo�I%,�f' ii" PROPERTY OWNER MCLOSURE -Iieoz 14f) Qth'-e 1f pfopepy owner q d4lere".�1 (Int", nt ;f te p7operty awner is a cupora"lon, partnersru�., firrri 0'h ;r anmccrucrat M- orgaw2altc-n, comp,..'ite the 1o,,4,Av1nq: U, -t the v-0p(Ay, avone, r name H. lowed by She gimes of aa! 6ffioeers; rnerr? berS, 0,'1Tt'VFs, (4� iMk?A" �,,40actUs" 'd rpll:,`rxsfmny,� 2 L tusmesses thathave a parerit,-s, icvsdi3r�' Draffiiated ::uriness arntv" the a clp-rant 4w'; busr-vss, Or Clt-cr Cn ii c", - y 0,_,w:;n hqlret� i1r, irIc-c—'s, 'n '-,e s'u!)Ject lardll' ves -- A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION Agenda Item 10 Page 9 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List al int mum':orltmclom or tses wsinest;",Bt `s-wi!i orcviae sercic-es. ee,h Fespe-c-: Ic the re-ques-mal properVi use including bw nct 4,-nited to lhc- p,,Dyidem of anc-fietectur- servicas, real esta4e ser;ices �-ancia! sewic-2s aczc�.,nnng v-,rv!ces -and 1C'gj3! services, Atach list if necessaryj . . . .................. "n"LO ex"Sf-; yrs t. Vitae a Ltf:gh dfrex"C'f. of 7�!d I tecl'=y owo'.s Snares psess)'elq m%ne a -I 15;D pv�rtont zi In^ v a tmg a? a#JDIIJC4SWe ard Gaverr4,7ant Cwlfhtt c' i,-,,aerents- Art, Va 1e1Awr'%Shp, t�,I' exists w ",ft !0 Ct-:tlbilmess e-40hati 2 wn-�Hmq jcrship MtViOA t Me, QVIV ltus'ness entely , ""I) a contfoll=n9tv-)ef z ej'Ie eov.y ": wso a --onlrv%mg n*rer the :70 Nerai M shareJ' mama4er-�`pemt te C' V6! b--tween tf'e ent*fes E. axb;rs that shouk! Dle 02113se"10-rell In jet"- "ml'n'; tne tl' y f29(f''taaed ?-Vurw that t"o S Tai pe'r;r 'N' SLits"antrry 11,115e sa"re pe's'*," qwn pr rranop' Iwo orl.,fies lhcra' ;.t,# '.Dr—cm gr f€ff'*B 0- assels en't4im ztwn' 1hr" Qw Vf the S-a'm� of�ze% Cr errri0yom, via re ar-somt'es M-5-'vL:,:es w, pers-mm) zin a oas"" ';' !fiere as zlt-erw'"' - ygp'kng terweon Suitt, ar�d L�cal :tvr'c! -nf A: , Va U. 310, CERTIFICATIOV. vnler''a,A'rj ........ .. "4"—, r , *<":-r I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION Agenda Item 10 Page 10 Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Cleveland Street beginning approximately 440 feet west of Clearfield and extending westerly to its terminus District 2 Kempsville January 9, 2008 REGULAR Janice Anderson: Our last matter? Donald Horsley: The item is item 10. An application of Runnymede Corporation for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Cleveland Street beginning approximately 440 west of Clearfield Avenue and extending westerly to its terminus, District 2, Kempsville. Mr. Barrett? Michael Barrett: Can you all see that? Janice Anderson: Welcome Mr. Barrett. Michael Barrett: Madam Chair and members of the Commission. I hesitate to say that I'm back, but we are. We pledged to come back to you. Ed Weeden: Mike, state your name for the record. Michael Barrett: I'm sorry. I'm Michael Barrett, Runnymede Corporation, 2101 Parks Avenue. We're back because basically, we confirmed that there is no approved or funded project for a flyover. You're going to be told about plans for a flyover, but there is no approved project or, obviously, any funding for a flyover. The last time we were here, we basically made that presentation and it was deferred by you all; so, we're back. I know there are a few of you that are new; so, if you don't mind, I'm not going to go through the full- blown presentation that we had before but let me capsulate the main items. First of all, as you know, we dedicated this very small piece of right-of-way to the City of Virginia Beach so the city could construct Cleveland Street. In the almost 35 years since we dedicated that property to the City, the project has never been included in the CIP, which is the City's method to fund capital projects, and even today, it is not in the CIP. Secondly, despite all the language of the staff report that you have received, they, you, and we all know that Cleveland Street will never be built across the lake. Last time, we didn't really have reference to the lake, but here is the lake. About a quarter of a mile from the current end of Cleveland Street, which is right there, and this is the little section that we're talking about. As you can see, there isn't any room to build Cleveland Street across this lake now, and with the widening of the expressway that is going to occur, there is absolutely is no room to build it. And, so, this is the body of water that you're asking to believe that the City will construct a street. Now, if that conclusion that it will never be built across the lake is not to be believed, it must be Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 2 believed today that the Commonwealth of Virginia has approved and funded a project to widen I-264 in that area, and any remaining solid ground. There is a tiny bit of solid ground right there; it is going to be taken up by the widening of I-264 in that area. It is going to go to eight lanes, and high occupancy vehicle lanes. Now, the staff, however, in their report, says they can't take the extension of Cleveland Street out of the Master Highway Plan until there is some other alternative, but since you can see, very clearly that this isn't an alternative. You can't build Cleveland Street across the lake. That statement is really without merit. It is not up to the Runnymede Corporation to provide another alternative for the east/west traffic in this region. It is up to the City and the Commonwealth. And, so to hold us up because you can't build Cleveland Street until you identified some other viable alternative is, we think, is not appropriate. Now, since the extension of Cleveland Street across this lake is no longer a viable alternative, it is impossible to say that any public inconvenience will occur if this project is not built. That is the criteria by which street closures are supposed to be evaluated. Well any public inconvenience can occur. Well, clearly the project hasn't been there for 35 years, and it can't ever be built, as it was envisioned; so, how could anyone say that there is any public inconvenience if it is not built. Now, the City's report, which you have in front of you, says that, "The City should preserve its options regarding the Cleveland Street right-of-way and not approve the proposed street closure requested by the applicant". Again, one might ask? What option? There is no option here to build Cleveland Street, and you know that, and I think frankly, the staff knows it. It should have been removed from the Master Street and Highway Plan probably a decade ago, and certainly since they widened Virginia Beach Boulevard to 8 or 10 lanes. It certainly is not the project that is needed. Now, the implication of the staff report is that you must keep the right-of-way for some other reason. But let's be clear, the City took this parcel, this small little parcel for the extension of Cleveland Street from Runnymede in return for our commitment to dedicate that property to the City for the construction of Cleveland Street. Now, that is because we subdivided the property. We didn't receive any payment for dedicating the right-of-way. The payment that we received was the City's commitment to build the project, because frankly, we wanted the project to be built. And, we were agreeable to give to the City, dedicate it to the city, in return for the construction of Cleveland Street. Now, we agreed. We dedicated it, and now, it is nearly 35 years later. I can't believe this happened 35 years ago. The City has acknowledged that it is not going to build Cleveland Street across the lake. Thank God, because if they built it, if anybody proposed to build that street, they'd think we were all crazy. You can't build a street across a borrow pit. We take the position that in the 35 years, the City has had enough time to build a road, and since it hasn't, it's broached its agreement with the Runnymede Corporation. We gave it to them to build Cleveland Street. The City has never even put it in the CIP. So, the only fair and equitable solution is to return the property to its rightful owner, and that is the adjoining property owner. We own both sides of the road. It goes through our property. So, it should be returned to the Runnymede Corporation. Now, staff goes on to refer to that proposed flyover project, and Bob Miller is going to address that in a little bit more detail, but let me be clear that we recently reviewed the report by URS and VDOT, the main consultants relating to the improvements to I-264. In that briefing, given to the City Council in November, there is no mention, whatsoever, of a flyover of Greenwich Road onto Cleveland Street. No mention of it whatsoever. Bob is going to address that, but let me state the very Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 3 obvious conclusion. We didn't dedicate that land for a flyover of Greenwich Road across Cleveland Street. We dedicated it for the extension of Cleveland Street. If VDOT needs additional right-of-way for some project that they plan sometime in the next 50 years, or even if it is the next 10 years, they have the perfect right to take it. Come to us and take the property. We don't deny that. Bob is going to address a few points just relating to the flyover, and then I'll come back and just summarize our position. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Barrett. Robert Miller: Good afternoon. Janice Anderson: Welcome. Robert Miller: Congratulations Madam Chair. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Robert Miller: Mr. Vice Chair. Mr. Secretary. Mr. Vice Chair. Things really do change when you're not watching out. Donald Horsley: Not a whole lot. We're still here Bob. Robert Miller: To Mr. Redmond, for his recognition of "Hokie". That is pretty good. Thank you. Let me hand out a couple of things because I think a lot of this ends up being, and I'm going to repeat a few things that Mike said, but not too much. A lot of this is he said/she said and all these other things that have gone on. And certainly there is well founded history to this whole process. And, what I'm going to do is just hand out some documents that are facts. These are not my facts. These are recorded facts or published facts. The fust thing is the plat of the recordation of Cleveland Street dedication, as Mike just said, from 1976, when it was actually recorded. So, that just puts things in a solid perspective instead of just maybe a long time ago. This is really a long time ago. This is when this was done. This is when this entire development was done. The second item I have is the actual plan; copies from URS's Report made to Council in November of the intersections of Newtown Road and Witchduck Road. In each case, there are four pieces of paper here. This follows a little bit of instruction. They are separated by yellow sheets. Go until you get to a yellow sheet and then stop, and then pass it on to the next please. But these indicate two different plans for each one of those intersections. One, which is what we would get at a level of service "C", and what they call "reduce impact alternative". So, we have lots of alternatives. I'm going to pass these out and if you will just take a second to look at them while they're coming around. I'll appreciate it. Bill, I think I made enough so that you can have one too. I wanted to go back to one other thing before we get to the flyover. The Comprehensive Plan? I was here when the Comprehensive plan was done last time and sat in your chairs. I understand how important a Comprehensive Plan is as much as anyone does, and one other caveat before I go too far also. As a professional engineer, I am Bob Miller, MSA, and as a professional engineer, I certainly endorse good engineering. And, I want to see good engineering done. Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 4 I'm also a continuing proponent of what goes on I-264. I have made presentations, I believe to this group, and to other groups about the fact that I-264 is key to the future of our city. But we got to be realistic about it. A key to the future doesn't mean everybody stops and waits until we get to the future and then figures out what's going on. I-264 is important all the way along the line. The Comprehensive Plan says in this particular and the last Comprehensive Plan, if you read it, it says, "the connection between Newtown Road and Witchduck Road should be maintained to provide reverse frontage access for prime development land along I-264. I don't know what we were thinking about but I guess we were going to build some kind of prime development land into that lake. And, that is the exact phrase out of the Comprehensive Plan. That is why it was retained. Previous conversations and the Master Street and Highway Plan seem to indicate that there was an idea that we have additional lanes east to west, west to east between Newtown Road and Witchduck Road. And that information also comes out of the Master Street and Highway Plan. I had the privilege of working on one of those in 1975 or so, as a consultant is for the City of Virginia Beach, and it was talking about lanes, parallel lanes east and west, north and south. And, at that time there was a need. Since then, we have widened Virginia Beach Boulevard. We've done all kinds of things that have added to the lane frontage. With regard to the flyover, we have been told through a consistent process that now has gone one, Mike, I forgot when we started this particular on. I think last year in February, March, or April, your staff can give you an exact time. I think that we started that process with the idea that we can finally work through this issue. What we came to was an alternative analysis being done by engineering and with some kind of concept that there was a need here. When we first saw URS's plans, they're pretty much the same as what I have given you now. There are two pians there for Newtown Road and two for Witchduck Road. The two for Newtown Road, and as I alluded to, the first one says the level of service alternative, and then the second one says reduced impact alternative. The level of service alternative, and if you look at it, and I apologize for you trying to read this plan, but the level of service alternative tends to show ramps that are in 35-40 mph versus 25 mph. This offers an efficiency as everybody can understand. But this first alternative on Newtown Road, and the reason why I brought Newtown and Witchduck Road is that neither one shows a flyover. It takes out a couple of hotels. So, what they did was they came up with a reduced impact alternative. So, we have here in URS's own report, two alternatives. If you quickly turn over to Witchduck Road, the first alternative if you look at it carefully, in the bottom right loop. I'm just trying to be simplistic about this, down to what is called Grayson Road, there is a 35 mph ramp and a 40 mph ramp. If you look carefully, the 35 mph ramp runs through the building that I built in 1988. The 40 mph ramp and part of the 35 mph ramp runs through the brand new Jewish Community Center. Not a great idea. So, an alternative plan for Witchduck Road was brought up. It shows a 45 mph ramp in the right hand corner and a 25 mph ramp. Not as efficient but certainly and apparently acceptable. The 25 mph ramp and the 45 mph ramp neither one touched the Jewish Community Center. Thankfully, since that is brand new. But they do take out a building I built in 1978. A building I built in 1988. A building I built, oh yeah, in 2006. They also take out the smile dental office, which was built around 2004. Now, I'm almost, and I told Mike that I might be cutting my own respective throat by standing here telling you that I got to build those buildings, and now they're going to be taken out by the reduced alternative, the reduced impact alternative. But what I think it also Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 5 indicates is that these are concepts. These are plans. They're not plans today that can be brought forward because there is no money to build them. And candidly, the flyover, which if you look at this reduced impact alternative of Witchduck Road, is not shown. It is not mentioned. In the URS Report that is the study for the I-264 Corridor, which shows the improvements to meet the Federal guidelines and the State guidelines, safety of the public, etc., there is no flyover from Greenwich Road to Cleveland Street. The URS Report is also complete with economic analysis. The first time that I saw the flyover, Norbert Kuhn, who is a fine young engineer up in Public Works, showed it to me, and showed me three different concepts, and wouldn't allow me to have a copy of it because it was that new. I think it was perhaps September. He can tell you the exact time but I would suggest September or October. I memorized the document, as you guys know I'm capable of doing, not quite, but I went back and sketched up and three alternatives, one of which turns out to the picture, which has been given to you as the, I guess now, the preferred alternative. There were two others. The two others showed, I don't know how to word this thing. This is Clearfield Avenue. This is the Cox Building. They actually came in right there. One of them did. Excuse me. But it would have to come across the expressway at a high elevation and drop down very quickly to get to the elevation of the Cleveland Street. It wasn't practical. It may not have felt to be practical. I have no idea. There was a second one that came in at a little more of a "S" shape right in here, and again, probably had trouble getting down to Cleveland Street. I don't know all the logic. We have not seen any more information on this then you've seen. But, I will tell you that when Norbert presented it to me, I was shocked that we got more alternatives. Now, the reason why I was told this alternative was given, by the way if you look at the Witchduck Road reduce impact alternative, was to get rid of the flyover that is shown on that. It is very hard and I apologize for trying to draw pictures in the air here. There is a little flyover that comes right over the 7 -Eleven, crosses Greenwich Road and then drops down to get in line with Witchduck Road. That little flyover goes across Greenwich Road. If you took this alternative perhaps, and that is what I was told, you wouldn't have to have an intersection with Greenwich Road at Witchduck Road. Therefore, you wouldn't have to have the little flyover versus this major, unbelievable expensive one. As Mike alluded, the cost of this is not in anything that URS has done in the I-264 Corridor Study. As far as I know, it is not in any budgeting anywhere that we've seen. And, I would just ask you to realistically look at the facts of this that we have been tied up for 32 to 35 years on a piece of land being told that something was going to happen, and with all due respect to great engineering, I think we've done a lot of very good plans trying to find the perfect plan, and we haven't been able to find that. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Excuse me. Are there any questions for Mr. Miller? Thank you. Michael Barrett: In summary then. I know you were told in a presentation that you got at the informal that there is another concept. There is another idea. We know there is another idea. I mean, just because it is identified in the URS VDOT Plan that was only as of November 13th, now someone has come up with another concept, but it is just that, a concept. Right now, VDOT plans to widen I-264 and they're going to take the land. If you try to build Cleveland Street it is going to have to be over the water. All this speculation about how the Newtown and the Witchduck interchanges are going to be built, and how this flyover is going Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 6 to be built is just that. In fact, if you read your staff report, I'm a bureaucrat. I use to work for the City. I know how to write bureaucratic language. And, I suggest that some of you are too. This is no criticism of the staff. The staff is being placed in a position where it has to justify an impossible premise. And, that impossible premise is that you will build a road, Cleveland Street over the borrow pit, and there having to make due with that. They can't change that because that is a City Council designated project and Master Highway Plan. And, unfortunately, they are being forced to write around that basic fact. You can't built a street across the borrow pit, because of that, we ask you do the very simple, fair, and correct thing. Close the tiny little portion, 35,000 square feet of Cleveland Street. If some time in the future VDOT gets funding, gets a project, has the money to spend $100 million dollars extra, now, the hundred million for the flyover is extra for what it is going to cost for the regular segment of Newtown to Witchduck. If sometime when our children are sitting where you all are, and that is possible, they can take our property. And, we'll gladly participate with them, but for right now, it is time to acknowledge that you can't build Cleveland Street. It ought not to be in the Master Highway Plan and we ought to have the opportunity to have that back so we can build a project. Thank you very much. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Barrett. Are there any questions for Mr. Barrett at this time? Yes. Mr. Barrett? Can you come back up please? Thank you. Jay Bernas? Jay Bemas: I had a quick question. On one of your, I guess it is a legal argument, you mentioned that there is an agreement between the City and the landowner that they dedicated property specifically for Cleveland Street, and that because the City has not built on it in 35 years that they should give it back. I haven't seen anything about the agreement that you referenced. Michael Barrett: No. I'm not asking you anything other than to close the street. There is a provision in law for the street closure. When that happens, if you decide to recommend that to Council, they would close it. That in essence is the action that we're asking you to do. I'm not making a legal argument because I'm not a lawyer. I'm just telling you that we dedicated the land for the construction of Cleveland Street. The City now acknowledges that it's impossible. They will never build Cleveland Street. Any street that is not any longer needed, especially a paper street like this is, needs to be closed and returned to its rightful owner according to the law. And, since we're the adjoining property owner on either side, we would have the right to buy it back from the City. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Go ahead Barry. Barry Knight: Mr. Barrett, you said that you don't believe that this street will ever be built, and you're so confident that it will never be built, that I believe I heard you say, that if we were to agree to the closure of this, and you build a building, a parking lot or something that was in the city's right-of-way, that you would facilitate legally, some how or another, the city reacquiring the property. Tell me if you will, is there going to be a building in that area or not? And if, you feel confident that in the future this road is not going to come. But if this road did come, what would you tell VDOT or the City if they come back to you, and they Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 7 say, "Mr. Barrett", in legal form, this is what you put in the deed or whatever legal fashion it was, that we will not facilitate this road coming through here? I mean, is there going to be a building there? If there is, are you going to agree to tear the building down? I mean, I know you have a lot of confidence so, I'm kind of asking you to kind of put your money up so to speak. Michael Barrett: Actually we did Barry, and it is on page 7. That is what we have agreed to do. And, in fact at one point, the Director of Public Works agreed to that or at least indicated that he wouldn't oppose the closure. Now, of course that has all changed. This is no longer relevant because they backed out of the agreement that we had. We were going to swap. We were going to give them 50 feet. They were going to close the street. They were about equal. Everything would have been fine. But that is off the table because the City backed out of that agreement. Now, referring to your overall question, I know you're an intelligent bright person and you probably have some engineering background. Can you? I'm not trying to be ugly here. Can any of you look at that borrow pit, know the financial situation of the City, know that the interstate is being widened to 16 lanes. Virginia Beach Boulevard has already been widened to eight lanes, ten lanes if you count the turn lanes. This is going to add two lanes. Can anyone in their right mind suggest that the City will build Cleveland Street over that borrow pit? Barry Knight: I'm in reference to this up here. If that is the plan that looks to me from what I heard in the informal and we'll hear it again in a few minutes. If this is a possibility up here, would the Runnymede Corporation be willing to say, we'll build a building if this ever happens? If this or the spur ever happens, we will give you the land back in a flat situation? Take the building out and give the land back to you. Michael Barrett: Absolutely not. Again, let's be clear. We dedicated this right-of-way to build Cleveland Street. That is what we dedicated it for. That was an agreement between us and the City of Virginia Beach 35 years ago. And, the agreement was that we will give it you for free if you build Cleveland Street. That is what we all do as developers when we get dedicate property to the city. There is a contract between us and the City. Barry Knight: There is a Quid Pro Quo on that though. Michael Barrett: Yes there is. Barry Knight: It may not have been dollars exchanged but it was an agreement. You all didn't give it up for free. You all got something in return is what I'm getting. What I'm saying is and the way I understand it is that the City now has a deed to this property. They own this property. They can keep it if they want to. That is what they're asking us to make a recommendation to Council for, and I'm kind, and I don't mean to do this but I'm kind of putting the monkey on your back. If you were absolutely positively so confident that this would never happen, I probably be willing to vote for the street closure, if you would guarantee me that anything that is impeding the progress that you will put it back to its natural state, and let the city have it back. Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 8 Michael Barrett: Commissioner Knight, you're pointing always to the flyover. We didn't dedicate any land to the City for a flyover, and we didn't dedicate any land to VDOT, and we didn't dedicate it to the Federal Highway Administration. We've already built all of Cleveland Street from Witchduck Road to Clearfield and then the extension so that Cox could build. We dedicated it. We built it. Now there is 80 million dollars worth of property that you get tax revenue on because we did that. You didn't build Cleveland Street. We built it and we gave you the right-of-way for the tiny little rest of it based on a provision that you would build Cleveland Street to connect over to Newtown Road. I guess if you will acknowledge that we're talking about the extension of Cleveland Street, I will agree to give it back to you if you ever build Cleveland Street across the borrow pit and connect it to Newtown Road. I will agree to that. Barry Knight: I would like to ask Mr. Macali a question, if I could? Janice Anderson: Absolutely. Barry Knight: Mr. Macali? On this particular piece of property and you've been following the dialogue, does it say or is it legally enforceable in the deed that Virginia Beach has to this property that the only use that Virginia Beach can use of this property is Cleveland Street? Bill Macali: I haven't seen the deed but that would be extraordinary unusual. I don't think that Mr. Barrett is saying that the deed encompasses some kind of legal limitation that the City can only use it for Cleveland Street. Michael Barrett: Actually, that is actually what I'm saying. Bill Macali: If that is something that is in the deed then perhaps we can produce that. Michael Barrett: I'm saying that's when a private property owner enters into a subdivision agreement with the City, and part of that is that you have to dedicate this land because it is in the Master Street and Highway Plan, we have to give it to you, implicit in that agreement is that you're going to build that street. Bill Macali: That's the confusing pari. I'm not sure he's arguing that we have a legal obligation to do this or a moral one. I'll be surprise if there is a legal obligation to return that property - Janice Anderson: Mr. Macali? Wouldn't that be an outside matter? That would be a civil matter, they could bring a suit, if there was an obligation for the City to build the street, which I agree, I think if you put a dedication there is not a requirement for the City to make the improvements. You dedicate the right-of-way. Bill Macali: If there is language in that deed of dedication, then we would be happy to look at it. If there is a covenant that the City will use it only for Cleveland Street, and if it is not Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 9 used for Cleveland Street, it will be returned to the developer, to Runnymede, then we probably should think about that. Janice Anderson: But you need to look at that document? Bill Macali: Yes. I would be very surprised if there was that particular language. And, Mr. Barrett, at one point said that is exactly what he is saying but a second later, I understood him to say that it is implicit, so if it is not explicitly stated in that deed. Janice Anderson: Then it is not a condition of the conveyance. Bill Macali: Right. Michael Barrett: But let me convey. I'm here before you based on a state statute dealing with street closures. You didn't create that statute. The state created it. Janice Anderson: Yes. Mr. Barrett. We understand. Michael Barrett: And what that says is that if there is a paper street. It hasn't been used. It will result in no public inconvenience of a citizen, a property owner of Virginia Beach is allowed to apply to you to close that street and have that right-of-way returned to the appropriate property owner. That is a state law. Janice Anderson: I believe I will defer to Mr. Macali. Bill Macali: It doesn't say that the street closure application has to be submitted. Janice Anderson: Right. Bill Macali: Certainly, you can always apply for it under any circumstances but the city, unless there is the contractual provision in this original dedication, there is no requirement that the City grant this application. Janice Anderson: Just as long as the City believes they have a public purpose for it. Bill Macali: Yeah. Street closures are pretty much at the city's discretion to grant or deny. There doesn't have to be any immediate purpose in mind. There doesn't have to be any purpose in mind, period. But if the city feels like it needs to keep the property or wishes to keep the property, it's really under no obligation to grant a street closure. Now, again, I'm saying if there is this original Deed of Dedication that has some kind of covenant like that, the situation would be different, and we will take a look at it. But again, I don't think that the claim is being made that there is language in the dedication of that portion that is sought to be closed today that requires the City to give the property back under any circumstances. If there is, then I take back everything I said and we really need to rethink this position. But otherwise, I think the street closure is something that the City is not obligated to grant. Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 10 Janice Anderson: Thank you. Barry Knight: Mr. Barrett? On that line of think, I agree with you. I don't think that Greenwich Road is going be extended over the borrow pit. To me, that makes common sense and I totally agree with you on that. And, if that is all that we were talking about I vote for the street closure. And, if you can produce the deed or some sort of legal document that says that this land is conveyed to you for the purpose only of Cleveland Street, I'Il vote for it then too. But, in lieu of that, I'm hesitant if the city owns the property, and if there are some plans in the works and because I don't want to jeopardize our funding with VDOT. So, that is kind of what my position was. I do agree with you on the Cleveland Street. It is kind of two separate items that we are talking about. Michael Barrett: And, I do think that as a citizen and as a landowner, you expect the City to deal fairly. In other words, I know none of you would agree to the principal that you can take property incident to your police powers and use it for some other purpose. There has been a lot of change to the condemnation law recently. Again, I'm not an attorney. I'm looking at this as a guide and as all of you. You're property owners. The City comes in and takes your property for a purpose. Janice Anderson: This was a dedication? Michael Barrett: I'm sorry? Janice Anderson: Mr. Barrett, wasn't this a dedication? Michael Barrett: Yes. It was a dedication. Janice Anderson: It was not taken. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Barrett? Go ahead. Phil? Philip Russo: This would be for Mr. Barrett and Mr. Macau. Ed Weeden: Phil, talk into the microphone please. Philip Russo: Sorry. This is a question for Mr. Barrett and Mr. Macali. It is my understanding then that even if the road is closed Runnymede would still have to buy the property from the City? Bill Macali: Yes. That is correct. Philip Russo: Has Runnymede entered into negotiations with the City for purchase of the property? Michael Barrett: Well, we can't do that until the street is closed. We understand the process. We've closed countless streets in the city, so we understand the process. Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 11 Bill Macali: Typically Mr. Russo that is not done until the street is closed but they would have to purchase the property. It is not uncommon for there not to be negotiations as to a purchase price at this stage. Michael Barrett: Convect. Philip Russo: I assume that someone from the City is going to speak? Janice Anderson: Yes. Michael Barrett: And, I will have the opportunity to speak. Janice Anderson: Yes. Gene? Eugene Crabtree: Just one statement here. We keep talking about Cleveland Street and Cleveland Street could run starting with the yellow there across the interstate all the way over to Greenwich Road, and that whole thing that we're looking at there could be named Cleveland Street. And the technology or the actual essence of the contract to start off with will still be Cleveland Street, and it still going to be used. Cleveland Street is still going to be used. It doesn't need to be closed except for that one little spur out there which can be closed. That whole thing could be called Cleveland Street and it meets with the original agreement. It is schematics. All it is schematics. Michael Barrett: I think as a citizen I would expect an element of fairness much greater than that in this circumstance. We seek fairness and justice to be quite honest with you. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Barrett. That is what we're trying to do. Are there any other speakers? Al Henley: I like to say something. Janice Anderson: Yes. Al Henley: Mr. Barrett. Michael Barrett: I'm sorry. Al Henley: That is okay. You get tired of standing up there right Mike? I have a question for you. If for some reason this right-of-way is closed, what plans in the future would Runnymede have for, and I assuming it is a 50 foot right-of-way? Michael Barrett: Yeah. Actually, I'll show you the site plan. We plan to build about 140,000 square feet of headquarter office space. This is the site plan. I think you've seen this before. There would be a building here and there would be a building here. This plan we had for sometime. This was slightly modified. This is the right-of-way right here. Now, Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 12 part of that agreement that I referred to is there is a raw water line that goes through the property and we were dealing with that. We needed to provide access to the city to the lake so we've done that. We've complied with all of the comments that were made during the street closure process but this is what we've planned to do. Can you see that alright Al? I'm sorry. Al Henley: Yes. Well, my next question is if this is the 50 foot dedicated right-of-way Michael Barrett: Actually, I think it is 60, if I'm not mistaken? Al Henley: 60? This proposed concept that we're looking at is probably at 150 feet. So, additional right-of-way obviously may run through this area. Say this complex was built and of course, some of the building that was headquarters on the northwestern area would have to go or be condemned. As for the other part of the street is parking lot. I'm thinking that in the planning stages that this concept became true. Everything would be elevated so that probably that complex would have to be... Michael Barrett: I suspect Al, to be honest with you, that if this thing ever gets into the approval process and is funded in 50 years, or whenever, they have to take all of this back. I think they would have to take all of our property. I guess you have to ask yourself, are you going to stop a development that is going to add that kind of income to the City of Virginia Beach? I -think you're right. I don't think you can get back down to the elevation of Cleveland Street, and I don't see how we would have access. Of course, this is just all a concept. There is no real plan at this point. Al Henley: I personally look at this in two ways. I'm wearing your set of shoes, and I'm wearing the state's set of shoes and the City's as well. And, I'm trying to think out loud here. I look at this property very similar, because here is a piece of right-of-way. Go back a little bit. To answer your question, or not to answer your question but to comment on your comment that was this particular right-of-way was dedicated before Cleveland Street. I was probably an inspector on Cleveland Street when it was built and I know I was supervisor on the cul-de-sac. On the original right-of-way dedication, it says for future expansion to Cleveland Street. Like all streets, it's a name, schematics, like Gene said. So, unless that document clearly states specifically for Cleveland Street, which I'm sure it was not. It was strictly for right-of-way purposes. The City now owns it and there is a 6- foot right-of-way, and that right-of-way, if it was ever developed would belong to the Commonwealth of Virginia VDOT because all those streets, we the City accepts and we turn it over to the State for maintenance money, which the City of Virginia Beach maintains those right-of-ways. So, technically we got two parties involved here, VDOT, the highway division as well as the City for maintenance of those streets. So, that kind of comments on your comment regarding the Cleveland Street Extension, and as for the other part on your side and I'm standing in your shoes, for 35 years, and I hate to use the term "hostage" but very similar over in the Bayside area that the Planning Commission for a couple of years looked at an application for a family to build on some land that they had and the City of Virginia Beach Economic Development said that we don't want you too because we have a plan. To me it is very similar to that Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 13 situation. Unfortunately, that plan has been with the City of Virginia Beach for those folks for over 20 years, which only recently they are not getting a plan together to show what the big picture is going to be like in the Bayside area, which is great for the property owners who are still in that area. So, I look at this very similar to that. The City has an opportunity to do something with it for 35 years. They did not take advantage of it. However, then came the State who says, wait a minute, we got this proposed plan, which is good for our future needs and citizens of Virginia Beach, for this flyover to handle what traffic may be need in 2030, or whatever. So the question is, is it really fair for the owners of this property surrounding properties to not have the opportunity to give this right-of-way back to utilize what they would have plans for that would generate quite a bit of revenue for the City of Virginia Beach? So, that would be a plus for the city. Once again, this was a concept. I think I've commented enough on this particular item and you see where I'm coming from. I would like to get an opportunity from the City's staff of Public Works and Traffic, and obviously the Engineer's Office. I know they have agreed to some degree in the informal session and I would like to see them to come forward. If it is okay with the rest of the Planning Commission, and see what other information has surfaced, and maybe enlighten me a little bit more on what this concept is. Michael Barrett: I certainly agree with that. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions of Mr. Barrett? If we can have Rick and do we have anybody else from Public Works? Ric Lowman: Yes. Norbert Kuhn. Janice Anderson: Thank you Ric. Ric Lowman: My name is Ric Lowman. I'm with Public Works, Traffic Engineering. I don't know what specific questions you want answered or kind of a recap of the presentation we discussed this morning at informal. Janice Anderson: Probably the recap, but mainly to discuss where this flyover position is and where do the designs come from. Ric Lowman: Okay. As you see, what Mr. Miller handed out some alternatives for the Witchduck interchange, and one of those we call it or VDOT considered the Witchduck IA. And what that was is it included a flyover of Greenwich Road as it tied down onto Witchduck Road, and that was for the eastbound off ramp of I-264. Well, the City asked VDOT if they could reconsider that ramp for a number of reasons. One of which was to kind of make operations at the Witchduck Road level better for traffic. And VDOT went back and took a look at some things. They came back with the option that you're going to see up there. They call that the Witchduck Option #3. At the same time they also had to go back and revisit the alternatives for Newtown because they found that Newtown, and I think it was Newtown 4 was too costly so they went back and came up with the Newtown 5. Now, I'm confusing myself. Okay. They came up with the Newtown 4 Revised, and that is an option Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 14 that they packaged with the Witchduck 3 Option, which is the flyover. That is what we showed you this morning at your informal meeting. And, if you would like us to, we can roll this out again and show you this. But again, knowing that this is a small part of a much bigger picture that stems all the way from the interchange of I-264 and I-64 all the way to the Witchduck Road Interchange, this option was endorsed by VDOT as being the preferred option. And again, VDOT sat down with the City of Virginia Beach and the City of Norfolk and both cities, preliminary endorsed these options to take forward. Now, as it is stated in you report, the next steps on this is that they do have to a NEPA document on this, which is the National Environmental Policy Act document to kind of document the environmental impacts of these projects, and these impacts. But, they plan on taking this to a public citizens information meeting, I guess in February, next month of this year. They will be showing this as the preferred option. And, like I said, the City of Virginia Beach and the City of Norfolk have endorsed these options as being the preferred alternative. Janice Anderson: This latest option that you showed us this morning? Ric Lowman: Yes ma'am, which includes this piece here. So, like I said, City Management has seen this option and has endorsed it as the preferred option. And as such, as I said, the next steps, VDOT is going to go back and request additional funding to make up for the short fall between what's been programmed in the state's six year plan and what's needed to build these new options for Newtown and for Witchduck. Janice Anderson: Okay. Let me ask you one question. The handouts that we received earlier, that Mr. Miller handed out, they're not funded? They're the same position as this latest version? Ric Lowman: Well, portions of them are the same project. Really, what this is all about is that these only include improvements to the south side of I-264 at this time. And, I believe that the improvements that he handed out were from the overall I-264 study that said okay, if we have to improve the entire corridor, what would be needed at each interchange? These improvements are not actually being done as a master plan for the I-264 corridor. These improvements are being done because VDOT originally had a project at the I-264/64 Interchange to add another ramp from eastbound I-64 onto I-264 eastbound. That one ramp that backs up coming from Chesapeake into Virginia Beach everyday. The original project was to add the second ramp lane there. Well, VDOT went and studied that and they found they would have to carry the improvements to Newtown otherwise they would be pushing the problem a little bit further. They took it a little further and said well, we have to improve it all the way to Witchduck because the problems would go to Witchduck. So, that is how these improvements came along. These are not the ultimate improvements for Witchduck or Newtown. These are just interim improvements that will get you part of the ultimate improvements but they're not the ultimate improvements for I-264. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions for Ric? Go ahead Dave. David Redmond: Just to clarify Mr. Lowman. You said that the City of Virginia Beach has Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 15 endorsed this plan. You don't mean City Council you mean at some executive level at City Mangers Office? Ric Lowman: At a staff level. Yes. I believe at the City Manager level this plan has been endorsed. And, I believe enough, so that VDOT can just move forward into the preliminary engineering or into the preliminary design of this so that we can get the additional funding or VDOT can get the additional funding, and then move into the preliminary design. But the current stint of this, as we were explained in our meeting with VDOT was to have the project advertised in the year 2012 with a four year construction period. David Redmond: When you mean the project, you mean the entire project not necessarily this particular portion of it? Ric Lowman: The entire project, all the way from I-64 to Witchduck. David Redmond: And it's possible, is it not, that you could have that project funded and not have that alternative being included as part of it? Ric Lowman: There is a possibility. And again, if VDOT can't get the additional funding we may have to do this in phases so they would obviously start at the west and do the I-264/64 Interchange and work their way east towards the Witchduck Interchange. But, I believe that is option is going to be the preferred option that they carry through into design. David Redmond: Okay. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Gene and then Henry. Eugene Crabtree: Just real quick. In this preferred option that you're talking about and that borrow pit does not come into bearing whatsoever does it? Ric Lowman: No sir. Eugene Crabtree: It's completely out. So any reference to the borrow pit is gone? Ric Lowman: No. You were correct in saying that Cleveland Street could be considered Cleveland Street until it ties down at Greenwich. Janice Anderson: Henry? Henry Livas: Is it fair to say that this flyover is not funded at all? The applicant is making that statement. I see references to certain funding. I don't know how hard that funding is, but. Ric Lowman: Well, there is $160, and I'm quoting from what Norbert has given me because Norbert Kuhn, who made the presentation this morning, he is the project manager for the Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 16 City. Again, this is a VDOT project so we just have representation on this project. But there is $165 million dollars that has been funded, and that was the original design. That project is made up of State and Federal money, again because it doesn't back the federal highway system. And so, that is federal money that has been obligated and the FY08 to FY12, six year program, the VDOT program. So that money is obligated to that amount. The additional funding, you know the $50 to $100 million dollars is going to be sought from the federal government. There was indication that there may be some City match that would have to be put up but the Federal Highway Administration did say that they believe that the overpass could be included in the interstate project. Henry Livas: Okay. The applicant makes a good argument about Cleveland Street getting extended but if we just take that off the table you still need the Cleveland Street for the flyover don't you? Isn't that a fact? Ric Lowman: Yes. Henry Livas: Right. It would probably help us if we limit our discussions to that. But, do you have an elevation problem coming over the highway and getting down to Cleveland Street that can't be worked out? Ric Lowman: That would be something that would have to be worked out in the design phase. Henry Livas: You could go further down Cleveland Street. Ric Lowman: Well, I'm not exactly sure how quickly you can tie down here at this point. But if it could be tied down at this point perhaps access could be granted somewhere in here. And, maybe this note here could go underneath, and again this is going to be a raised bridge there. There could be some accommodation to get access underneath the bridge that flies over I-264. I mean, I'm speaking very informally but access there is a good chance that access could be maintained to both those. Henry Livas: Okay. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Al. Al Henley: Ric, I know there was some confusion on my part this morning. I heard $100 plus million this morning was already slated for funding for this, -but it is my understanding that is true for Newtown Road to Witchduck Road on I-264. That's the funding that we're talking about. Ric Lowman: Yes. Al Henley: But as we sit here today, there is absolutely no funding whatsoever for the Cleveland Street Flyover? Is that correct? Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 17 Ric Lowman: Well? Al Henley: It's only this preferred by VDOT. This is the preferred plan. Is that correct? Ric Lowman: This is the preferred plan now. Again, when the project was scoped and when the funding was sought, the preferred option were Witchduck 1A, which was the flyover. Again, VDOT thought the issued based on the City of Virginia Beach comments about Witchduck Option IA. When VDOT went back and took a look at it and said we think we've come up with a better solution for you, and that is the Witchduck Phase 3 Option. So, yes, there is a short fall there but that is something that VDOT is going after to eliminate that short fall. So, VDOT is very confident they're going to build a project. Al Henley: Currently, there is no money for this flyover? Ric Lowman: Technically, I guess yes but it's really just a $50 to $100 million dollar short fall in the overall project. Either way. Janice Anderson: Phil. Al Henley: Thank you. Philip Russo: Okay. Just so that I'm clear, the City has an opportunity to sell this property to Runnymede. Runnymede would build this building? Ric Lowman: Yes sir. Philip Russo: It would increase revenue for the City, and then if the flyover eventually comes to fruition, then the State has to buy the property back from Runnymede? Ric Lowman: Yes. Philip Russo: So, what's the problem with the City? If Runnymede wants to take that gamble, so to speak, doesn't the city come out a winner here? Ric Lowman: I'm not a lawyer but I'm assuming that VDOT would have to condemn the property and VDOT would have to pay considerable damages to Runnymede for basically condemning the building and the site. And right now that property, it belongs to the City of Virginia Beach, and as such, the City of Virginia Beach would convey it to VDOT for the purposes of this roadway. So, basically VDOT would get this property, would be able to build on this right-of-way for nothing. It's our property now, so we can use it for this roadway. If we were to sell this piece off, again, I'm not a lawyer but I can almost guarantee you that we're not going to buy it back for the same price that we paid for it because of the damages. So, the VDOT price would go up. It would be just like building a building and tearing it down. You certainly would pay the same amount for the land if there was nothing on it as if there was a building on it. So, if you take a look at this plan, VDOT's got a lot of Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 18 money tied up in right-of-way acquisition at the Newtown Interchange. There are a lot of acquisitions. In Witchduck Phase IA, as Bob Miller mentioned, if you take a look at the plan that he handed out with the option that flies over, that also means that a ramp has to go through the quadrant where his buildings are located, and that results in a loss of four buildings and a small piece of some other things. Janice Anderson: That is why you want to stay away from that because it drives up the expense of it. Ric Lowman: That is one of it. VDOT produced a report that lists the pros and cons of Witchduck Phase IA. And they list the pros and cons of Witchduck Phase 3 or Witchduck Alternate 3. One of the pros, obviously for Alternate 3 is that it reduces the amount of impacts to that quadrant of the roadway of the south side of I-264, meaning his buildings. Janice Anderson: Jay? Jay Bemas: Ric, I don't know if you know the answer to this or maybe Norbert but in the staff report on page 4, it specifically says that the City has also agreed to provide $5 million dollars specifically for funding the Greenwich to Cleveland crossover. Now was that appropriated in the CIP? Ric Lowman: Jay. I'm not going to touch that one. If Norbert wants to answer that. I know that VDOT brought up the issue that if the flyover was built, the City, because it really wasn't an interstate related facility, and it would be a betterment also for the City. It would better the local traffic options for city streets they would ask the city to participate in the match of federal funds. Again, we're not paying for the entire flyover. The federal government, FHWA said preliminarily that they would spot. I believe, its an 80/20 matching ratio of federal to state funds, and that VDOT would be looking to the City to help pay for that. Jay Bemas: So, do you think Norbert knows the answer to that because it is in the staff report? And the implication is that money has been appropriated by City Council. Janice Anderson: Well, we could bring Norbert up right after Mr. Lowman. Did you have a question? Are there anymore questions for Ric Lowman? Thank you. Ric Lowman: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Norbert Kuhn could you come up? I think Mr. Bernas has a question for you. Norbert Kuhn: Hi. My name is Norbert Kuhn. I'm with Public Works Engineering. I'm currently the project manager for this project, as well as many of the improvements on I-264. Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 19 Janice Anderson: Okay. Did you hear Mr. Bemas's question or would you like him to repeat it? Norbert Kuhn: No. I heard it. Janice Anderson: Okay. Norbert Kuhn: Going back to the commitment that the City made, actually the day before Thanksgiving, VDOT did a presentation at which both to Mrs. Williams, the City Manager of Norfolk, as well as Mr. Spore had attended. VDOT presented this and basically carne out with some numbers. The costs associated with these improvements and had indicated at that time if the cities would want to proceed with this Cleveland Street flyover that the City of Virginia Beach would have to contribute $5 million dollars. Five million dollars was actually the additional cost to do the flyover versus what was originally planned shown back on the URS study. The $5 million dollars has not been appropriated yet but I'm sure it will be appropriated in the next CIP. Janice Anderson: Any other additional questions for Mr. Kuhn? Norbert Kuhn: There were a couple of things that I wanted to point out. Janice Anderson: Please do. Norbert Kuhn: I more less see this, as indicated among the staff earlier, that this is an extension of Cleveland Street to Greenwich Road. The original plan to extend Cleveland Street west of the borrow pit was based on the Master Street and Highway Plan that was based on something that was developed 30 years ago. Traffic volumes and traffic patterns have changed throughout the City of Virginia Beach. The traffic transportation plan changes with these changes that occur due to increase in density. Traffic volumes on 1-264 probably more than doubled since then. The URS Study that was prepared and as indicated before was just a study that FHWA required the State to do with these improvements. Based on that study, the URS basically was asked and tasked to see what main line improvements had to be done from I-64 all the way down to First Colonial Road. That study was necessary because currently there are claims to add ramps down at the Great Neck Road and we wanted to see if there were additional mainline improvements that need to be made to I-64 Plus there were improvements that were required at I-64, and we wanted to see what additional mainline improvements need to be done there as well, and to identify the deficiencies at all the interchanges from 1-64 to Lynnhaven Parkway. These improvements that were shown earlier, they are not the ultimate improvements but these improvements and will not hinder any additional funding that is required on 1-264. So, even though these are not the ultimate improvements this project is basically broken down into phases due to the costs associated with the necessary improvements that are needed on I-264 from I-64 all the way to First Colonial Road. Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 20 Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any further questions? Thank you. Just a short rebuttal Mr. Barrett, please. Michael Barrett: Yes ma'am. I really have tried to spare you all of this mind-boggling. Again, frankly, I don't think the flyover has anything to do with our request. We are requesting you to close Cleveland Street. A tiny little 35,000 square feet that remains, just that tiny little segment. It happens to be right there. We built all the rest of Cleveland Street, this little piece here. If sometime in the future these guys get their act together because frankly you've been bamboozled here. The URS and VDOT, it's not just some little report. It's detailed over a billion dollar of improvements that are going to be needed for I-264. Now, one segment of that happens to be Newtown and Witchduck. Parts of that which are in there right now do not include this thing. This is something that is being discussed. It's concept. It doesn't have the force of law or approvable and the answer to your question was no. It is not funded. So, again, I respect the staff but my contention here is that I'm only asking you under your normal process of street closures that's identified by the Planning Commission is to close that tiny little portion of Cleveland Street. The rationale for asking for that is that it is absolutely inequitably clear that you will never build Cleveland Street. If you build Cleveland Street we will give it back. That is what I was trying to get clear with Commissioner Knight. Not redefining Cleveland Street as Greenwich but Cleveland Street. We give it back. In return for that we are going to build our project. You're going to be proud of it. It's going to be gateway to the entrance of Virginia Beach. It's going to be beautiful. I think you will agree that we do decent projects in this City. Thirty-five years is enough time to build Cleveland Street improvements. We gave it to you for that purpose. You're not using it for that. We would like to have it back. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Barrett. Henry? Henry Livas: I had one more question. Janice Anderson: I'm sorry. Henry Livas: You're talking about your project. As I recall the last time this came up you indicated that you could build a building without closing Cleveland Street. Maybe it would be a smaller one. Could you tell us what affect that would have on you? Michael Barrett: You have a good memory. Actually, as you can see, we've designed it so it could build whether you close Cleveland Street or not. Henry Livas: That is what I thought. Michael Barrett: Now, what's the most disturbing to me is that now they're talking about a project that will basically take all of our property. We can talk about access anyway you want but with a 25 foot high bridge coming across the center of your property, but anyway the answer to your question, we can build this. And on the other side of Cleveland Street Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 21 there was an agreement to allow the developer to use the propertyjust like we've shown here for parking. We can do that. You might say well, why did you put us through all this? Henry Livas: I didn't say anything. Michael Livas: I know you're thinking. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Thank you. Before we have any discussion, I don't know who will like to take it? Either Jack or Bill. If you could just go over because there has been a lot of discussion with the City's burden when we decide on street closures so if you could just review? Does there have to be a definitive plan when we look at street closures? Bill Macali: No. The City pretty much has complete power of whether or not to close the street. It's the City's property. In the absence of a contractual provision specifically stating that if it is not used for a certain purpose we'll give it back, that property can be used by the City as it sees fit. If the City does not want to close the street and retain the property for whatever purpose, if may do so. It is not required under any circumstances, saying the one that I mentioned, which are extremely unlikely, it is not obligated to grant that street closure. It is not like a Use Permit or a Rezoning. It is the City's property. If the City wants to keep it, it can, unless there is some kind of legal instrument to the contrary. I assume there is not because we haven't been presented with it. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Macali. Mr. Whitney, do you have anymore to say? Jack Whitney: I would just add from a planner's perspective, we've heard the legal perspective and the respective property owner's perspective. You got a written planning perspective here. I think we may be on the verge of over complicating the question to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission heard this request twice in 2007 in July and then again in October, I believe. The question is should we or should we not close this street? The right-of-way that City owns. Publicly held property knowing what we know about its current and future usefulness to the public. Since you deferred it last time in October, this project, this concept or whatever plan you want to call it, is advancing as Mr. Lowman, Mr. Kuhn indicated. In November, which has since you've heard this previously, the cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach have agreed and indicated that this is the preferred alternative of the ones that we've seen previously. This preferred alternative is advancing toward preliminary design, public hearings and so forth and funding. You know this preferred alternative includes a tremendous amount of right-of-way that we have before us to close or not to close. The staff knowing that, knowing that this project is advancing that it is narrowing to the point that we know it will impact this Cleveland Street right-of-way. We simply cannot recommend to you that we close this street with these projects moving forward as they are. And, we would recommend that you not close this street knowing what we know and the projects that are moving forward in both planning design and towards funding as we do now. It is clearer to us now then it was certainly in July and even in October that the importance and the role that this right-of-way is going to play in the overall improvements to Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 22 the interstate corridor and to the circulation system in the greater Pembroke area is more important than it was then, and our recommendation to you, not to close this street is sounder right now then it has ever been. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Whitney. I would like to open it up for discussion. Joseph Strange: I have a question. Janice Anderson: Sure. Joseph Strange: They keep saying that our children are going to be hearing this, so they're talking 35 to 50 years from now. What is your opinion on that? I'm thinking about the amount of money that the City is losing in taxes because there is nothing sitting on this property and trying to weigh this against what they might have to pay extra for it down the road. It doesn't look like the City might lose but so much money if they were collecting taxes all these years from that property. Jack Whitney: I see it moving forward. I don't see it languishing. It is moving forward. It provides a very important improvement to this corridor. We're running out of options to handle and improve the circulation system in this part of the City. We know it's got a role to play. I think it is moving forward. In the process, not only in planning preliminary design public hearing, but also the need for process and that to me indicates that the project is moving forward. It has got a life. It is going to happen. I can't put a timeframe on it for you but it is not static. It is not sitting there languishing for an extended period of time. It is moving forward. Joseph Strange: Thank you. Janice Anderson: I'll open it for discussion. Joseph Strange: The only thing that I can say is that it is very complex issue based on a lot of things that may or may not happen. We depend on the staff to bring to us the majority of the information that we have, and their recommendation. I find it always hard to go against their recommendation. Again, we have the question is when will it be built? How much money is going to be loss in the meantime? What is going to be the other damage to the City in the process? It just makes it extremely complex for a person in my position to reach a decision on this. I guess I go ahead a deny this closure because of the information that we have and the fact that the staff has said this is an ongoing project that is not static, and it is moving forward. It will be hard for us to say no to the staff recommendation. It's hard for me to say no. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Donald Horsley: I guess I intend to go along with Joe's comments there. I guess Mr. Miller kind of put a little bit of light to it when he was talking about these other proposals, and the Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 23 buildings that they would take. I would hate for us to close this street, encourage a project to be built and then have to go back and take, you know for the State or City or whoever, go back and take this project that has already been built. We got a piece of undeveloped property. This property, this right-of-way that the City owns, is not going to be enough. They're going to have to get some more of your right-of-way Mr. Barrett. We've got indications that the hearings are going to start forth next month, and there is some indication, if we take faith in what staff has given us, and we have no reason not too that this process is ongoing. It just seems like to me that this wouldn't be a wise decision on our part to go ahead with the closure at this time. I think I'm going to have to up hold staff s recommendation to that. Janice Anderson: Thanks Don. Al? Al Henley: Thank you. As most of you know, I'm a great proponent of highways and right- of-way improvements. Many times, I have fought for just a simple right -turn lane because I think traffic. And having worked here in the past, I was a great proponent of that and dedicated a number of years to the City of Virginia Beach for that very purpose. It is a complex issue. And, as I said earlier, sometimes I tried to wear both set of shoes, on this side of the podium as well as on that side, so I can hopefully better understand a situation as everyone sees it. I would hate to be one. Originally, I was leading toward closing this right- of-way. But as Jack said earlier, as early as July, I saw this as an embryo, and we know it today as a living breathing project, and I would hate to be the Commissioner that would close this street, and this project did come to fruition, and knowing that I was part of an extra cost element in the progress of our City. Knowing fullwell, I would find it hard for me to live with myself knowing that I was part of that additional million dollars or whatever the acquisition of those properties and the demolition of those improvements. We know that it is going to be extremely costly. It is already over a $100 million dollars, as we know today on I-264, and this particular flyover, we also know that there is going to be additional expense. So, to sum this up, I will not be able to support the closing of this Cleveland Street right-of- way. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Jay? Jay Bemas: I would like to make a motion to deny the application. Janice Anderson: A motion to deny by Jay and seconded by Henry Livas. Is there any future discussion? AYE 9 NAY 1 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY NAY HORSLEY AYE Item #10 Runnymede Corporation Page 24 KATSIAS ABSENT KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-1, the application of Runnymede Corporation has been denied. Al Henley: I'm sorry, l pushed the wrong button. Bill Macali: The vote is 10-0. Mr. Henley is indicating that he meant to vote "AYE". Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, the Board has denied the application of Runnymede Corporation. Janice Anderson: Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. 1 IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND 2 DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN 3 UNIMPROVED STREET KNOWN AS "CLEVELAND 4 STREET" AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT 5 ENTITLED "EXHIBIT SHOWING A PORTION OF 6 CLEVELAND STREET TO BE CLOSED (M.B. 234, 7 PG. 43) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" 8 9 WHEREAS, The Runnymede Corporation (the "Applicant") applied to the 10 Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street 11 discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 12 13 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said street be 14 discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or 15 before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this Ordinance; 16 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of 18 Virginia Beach, Virginia: 19 20 SECTION i 21 22 That the hereinafter described street be discontinued, closed and vacated, 23 subject to certain conditions being met on or before one (1) year from City Council's 24 adoption of this ordinance: 25 26 All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being 27 in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and 28 described as "CLEVELAND STREET (60' R/W) (M.B. 116, 29 PG. 42)" as shown on that certain plat entitled: "EXHIBIT 30 SHOWING A PORTION OF CLEVELAND STREET TO BE 31 CLOSED (M.B. 234, PG. 43) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" 32 Scale: 1"=100', dated June 1, 2007, prepared by MSA, P.C., 33 a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 34 35 SECTION II 36 37 The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City 38 Council's adoption of this ordinance: 39 40 GPIN: 1467-55-2459 and 1467-55-6189 41 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding 42 ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be 43 determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets 44 Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of said policy are 45 available in the Planning Department. 46 47 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot 48 lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be 49 submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said plat 50 must include the dedication of a 30' public utility easement to the City of Virginia Beach 51 across the property that is being resubdivided, subject to the approval of the 52 Department of Public Utilities and the City Attorney's Office, which easement shall 53 include a right of reasonable access. Said plat shall also include a 55' public right -of - 54 way reservation along Interstate 264 (1-264) for the proposed widening and 55 improvements to 1-264 and applicant shall enter into a Reservation Agreement with the 56 City of Virginia Beach to establish the 55' public right-of-way reservation, subject to the 57 approval of the City Attorney's Office. 58 59 3. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right -of - 60 way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate 61 that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private 62 utilities do exist, the applicant shall provide easements satisfactory to the utility 63 companies. 64 65 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with 66 the above stated conditions within one (1) year of approval by City Council. If all 67 conditions noted above are not in compliance and the final plat is not approved within 68 one (1) year of the City Council vote to close the street, this approval will be considered 69 null and void. 70 71 SECTION III 72 73 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before March 10, 74 2009, this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City 75 Council. 76 77 2. If all conditions are met on or before March 10, 2009, the date of 78 final closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 79 80 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the 81 underlying fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever 82 documents, if any, that may be requested to convey such interest, provided said 83 documents are approved by the City Attorney's Office. 84 85 SECTION IV 86 87 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the 88 Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY 89 OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor' and THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORATION, as 90 "Grantee." 91 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 92 day of , 2008. CA -10288 V:\applications\citylawprod\cycom32\Wpdocs\D006\P003\00048614. DOC R-1 February 8, 2008 APP TED S O CONTENT: Planning epartmen APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney 3 IZ EXHIBIT "A" N/F ROMAN CATIMC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND (D.B. 2774 P& 2113) LOT A-1 (M.B. 257, Pa 90) GP1N 11467-56-7211 \ FIELD Y WWW LOCA RON OF CITY OF NORFOLK, A 30' RAW WAER LINE NCHT-OF-WAY OF UNSPECFIED WIDTH (M.B. 186, PG 3). \ VARIABLE WIDRI DRAINAGE EASEMENT (D.B. 2978, PC. 1980), (ALB. 218, PG. 77) -- — 30' PUBIC U71LITY EASEMENT THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORA71ON TO BE DEDICATE) TO 7HE (D.B. 2222, PG. 722) CITY OF WRGM/A BEACH Wlhl LOT 2-A �\ TME RECORDA71ON OF THE \ (U.S. 234, PC. 42) RESMW90N PLAT �rn GPM 11467-55-2459 L� `� Q.E NMA W J,b&r (BO' RI 4 + D? (M.S. 116, PG. 42) 49 N 3475439.9603 y7 E 12164966.74266' RMVATON STRIP FOR STREET W DENING \ w S 64'30'02" E (M.S. 213, PCI. 1) w 35.75' %- .58 58 /-251 / / y 18 \\\ = 0 253.97 00'18'34. W "''•�''� :�::\ POR77ON OF a ELAND T EM IF. AREA ih{YI Pg PG Y OR 0,240 AGS% 30'x40' EASEMENT FOR RELOCATED WATER MAIN — (D S 906 PG 7301 6.73' N 64' N/F NA OX CABLE OF HAMPTON ROADS INC. (D.S. 3002 PG 721) LOT 1-B (M.B. 234, PG 42) GPM 11467-55-8570 m �f IL=35.20' R=20.00; RESERVATON STRIP 7R STREET WIDENING I.B. 213, PG. 1) 1 '4V�sr CITY OF WRONA BEACH (HWY. P.B. 3A, PC 351, 351A 6 351B) THE RUNNYMEDE CORPORARON � (D.B. 1324 PG. 179) PARCEL B (M.B. 78, PG 31) (M.B. 116, PG 42) GPM 11467-45-8650 GPIN 11467-55-6189 A N172 N a 09 ®DENOTES PORTION OF CLEVELAND STREET TO BE CLOSED. AREA = 25,419 S.F. OR 0.584 AC. EXHIBIT SHOWING A PW710N OF (,'j,EHLOD STREETTO Qy12„ DENOTES 55' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION TO BE ESTABLISHED. AREA - 38,876 S.F. OR 0.892 AC. BE (U.S. � CLOSED ) WRGINHA BEACH, WRGINIA JUNE 1, 2007 cp o� o y )VISA. P.C. s Landscape Architecture • Planning ANN Surveying • Engineering Z� Environmental Sciences �. 5077 ROUSE DRIVE. VIRGI,YIA BEACH. VA JJW6J•3708 rHoxeom4sans�•FAxl7m�so-0w. SHEET 1 OF 2 JOB# 06172 PLAT RECORDED IN ZONED: 11 DATE 708-07 1 SCALE 1"-700' 1 DWN BY: JCA (M.B. 234, PG. 43) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Jason and Amy Przymuzala for a Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations on property located at 601 Cypress Avenue (GPIN 2427023772). DISTRICT 6 — BEACH. MEETING DATE: March 11, 2008 ■ Background: The applicant is requesting a variance to the floodplain regulations of the Site Plan Ordinance. The City's regulations require that modifications, alterations, repairs, reconstruction or improvements of any kind to a structure or use located in any part of a floodplain area to an extent or amount equaling or exceeding fifty (50) percent of its market value shall be undertaken only in full compliance with the regulations and the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) requires all construction located in a flood hazard area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to comply with specific regulations. The most important requirement being that the finish floor elevation (FFE) of the structure is at or above the base flood elevation (BFE), as determined by FEMA maps. The applicant desires to add a second story addition to the home. When the applicant applied for the building permit, the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department determined the home to be located within an AE Floodzone, which is a nine foot elevation. The first floor of the home is at a 9.6 - foot elevation. Thus the existing structure is less than one-half foot ( Y2 ' ) shy of the required 10.0 -foot elevation. The applicant indicates the proposed addition will exceed the market value of the existing structure. Thus, in order to add the second floor addition, the applicant must raise the existing structure one-half foot ( Y2 ' ) or obtain a floodplain variance. ■ Considerations: FEMA offers flood insurance to owners of property in and out of designated flood hazard areas. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) determines the rates for this coverage based on measures taken by participating localities to make structures more resistant to possible flood damage. Accordingly, the City of Virginia Beach Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5B, Floodplain Regulations requires the finish floor elevation of structures constructed in a designated flood hazard area to be one foot (1') above the BFE in order to receive a reduced rate for properties within special flood zone areas. Compliance with these requirements JASON AND AMY PRZYMUZALA March 11, 2008 City Council Hearing Page 2 of 2 is verified by an elevation certificate, certified by a registered engineer, and submitted prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. Due, however, to the possibility of extenuating circumstances stemming from characteristics of a site, a variance process was included with the adoption of the ordinance. Since the finish floor elevation of the structure (9.6 feet) is greater than the base flood elevation (9 feet), FEMA will insure the structure; however, the finish floor elevation of the structure does not meet the City requirement for one (1) foot above the base flood elevation. If a variance is granted, the owners will have to pay higher premiums than other owners in Virginia Beach with structures that do comply with the City's floodplain regulations. It must be emphasized that the approval of this variance will not affect other property owners in the City who adhere to the floodplain regulations and participate in the insurance program. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because granting the variance will not affect the rates of other property owners who participate in the flood insurance program, the requested variance of less than one-half foot is acceptable, 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 condition: The proposed addition shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan and variance approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on December 5, 2007. Said site plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager. k :�� JASON AND AMY PRZYMUZALA Agenda Item 10 February 13, 2008 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie REQUEST: Floodplain Variance to Section 513 of the Site Plan Ordinance, subsection 5B.5.b Regulation of flood fringes and approximated floodplain ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 601 Cypress Avenue GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 24270237720000 6 - BEACH 7,500 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance to the floodplain regulations of the Site Plan Ordinance. The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) requires all construction located in a flood hazard area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to comply with specific regulations. The most important requirement being that the finish floor elevation (FFE) of the structure is at or above the base flood elevation (BFE), as determined by FEMA maps. FEMA offers flood insurance to owners of property in and out of these designated flood hazard areas. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) determines the rates for this coverage based on measures taken by participating localities to make structures more resistant to possible flood damage. Accordingly, the City of Virginia Beach Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5B, Floodplain Regulations requires the finish floor elevation of structures constructed in a designated flood hazard area to be one foot (1') above the BFE in order to receive a reduced rate for properties within special flood zone areas. Compliance with these requirements is verified by an elevation certificate, certified by a registered engineer, and submitted prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. Due, however, to the possibility of extenuating circumstances stemming from characteristics of a site, a variance process was included with the adoption of the ordinance. The City's regulations require that modifications, alterations, repairs, reconstruction or improvements of any kind to a structure or use located in any part of a floodplain area to an extent or amount equaling or exceeding fifty (50) percent of its market value shall be undertaken only in full compliance with the JASON AND AMY PRZYMUZALA Agenda Item 10 Page 1 regulations and the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. The applicant desires to add a second story addition to the home. When the applicant applied for the building permit, the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department determined the home to be located within an AE Floodzone, which is a nine foot elevation. The first floor of the home is at a 9.6 -foot elevation. Thus the existing structure is less than one-half foot ( % ' ) shy of the required 10.0 -foot elevation. The applicant indicates the proposed addition will exceed the market value of the existing structure. Thus, in order to add the second floor addition, the applicant must raise the existing structure one-half foot ( %2 ') or obtain a floodplain variance. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: A single-family dwelling. SURROUNDING LAND North: . A single-family dwelling / R -5S Residential. USE AND ZONING: South: . An inlet of Lake Rudee East: . A single-family dwelling / R -5S Residential. West: . Cypress Avenue Across Cypress Avenue is a single-family dwelling / zoned R - 5S Residential. NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is located on an inlet of Lake Rudee. There are no other known CULTURAL FEATURES: significant natural resources or cultural features associated with the site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 70-75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE Section 5B.8 of the Site Plan Ordinance states: Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, the city council may grant such variances from the terms of this section as will not be contrary to the public interest in cases in which the strict application of the provisions of this section would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the subject property; provided, however, that no variance shall be granted unless the city council finds that (1) such variance will not create or result in unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, nuisances, fraud or victimization of the public; (2) the granting of such variance will not be detrimental to other property in the vicinity; (3) the circumstances giving rise to the variance application are not of a general or recurring nature; (4) such circumstances arise from the physical character of the property or from the use or development of adjacent property and not JASON AND AMY PRZYMUZALA Agenda Item 10 Page 2 from the personal situation of the applicant; and (5) the granting of such variance will not be in conflict with any ordinance or regulation of the city. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request for a variance to the Site Plan Ordinance, Section 513, Floodplain Regulations, which requires the finish floor elevation of structures constructed in a designated flood hazard area to be one foot (1') above the above the base flood elevation. As the finish floor elevation of the structure does exceed the base flood elevation, FEMA will insure the structure; however, the finish floor elevation of the structure does not meet the City requirement for on foot above the base flood elevation. If a variance is granted, the owners will have to pay higher premiums than other owners in Virginia Beach with structures that do comply with the City's floodplain regulations. The approval of this variance will not affect other property owners in the City who adhere to the floodplain regulations and participate in the insurance program. CONDITIONS 1. The proposed addition shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan and variance approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on December 5, 2007. Said site plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Virginia Beach Planning Department. NOTE. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes 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. JASON AND AMY PRZYMUZALA Agenda Item 10 Page 3 THIS IS To CERTIFY THAT I ON JUNE 16, 2004 SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE BUILDINGS STAND STRICTLY WITHIN THE TITLE LINES AND THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS OF OTHER BUILDINGS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN. 28 ON 27 LINE PIN / S 7W00' E loi 47 TV V VOW Fl 32 OD 5.0- N 22T• Z PIN PIN (F) ON WALL 30 -74 v 29 LLI Z z �) AM I-- "DOSE -.4 . 7' ' Z 4 CL Br 3: 32 OD 5.0- N 22T• Z PIN PIN (F) ON LINE O -S 29 LLI z �) < Z 5 CL Br 3: 31 WOOD FENCE PIN (F) N 7W00 W'-�00' 0.6 CYPRESS AVENUE FORMERLY CASPIAN AVE. Sw 1,61-31107 PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOTS 29 & 31, BLOCK 33, SHADOW LAWN HEIGHTS NOTE. THIS PROPERTY APPEARS TO FALL IN VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA U.&T. P.14 FLOOD ZONE AE&X AS SHOWN ON THE FCR NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM MAP AMY JEFFRIES FOR THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY NO -515531-0033 E DATED 1215196 IDATE. JUNE 16, 2004 DENNIS J. 138011111Z P.C. BASE ELEVATION 9.0 20r Lpjj ri sw cewrpAL DPJM surrr 112 N% LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION F CAD TECH: U.P. SITE PLAN JASON AND AMY PRZYMUZALA Agenda Item 10 Page 4 C Z � Z � � o � � g r' 0 Pkx 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) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the 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) Does an official or employee o the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes No If yes, what is the name of the cial or employee and the nature of their interest? Floodpim Variance AppbCadon Page 9 of 10 Revised 7/11!2006 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT JASON AND AMY PRZYMUZALA Agenda Item 10 Page 6 a A O O a w 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) ' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationshi p, 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. The undersigned also consents to entry upon the subject property by employees of the Department of Planni to photograph and view the site for purposes of processing and evaluating this application. ,.s✓Zcr• Q PI is i Print Name Property Owners Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Fbodplain Variance AppdwWn Page 10 of 10 Revised 7/11/2006 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT JASON AND AMY PRZYMUZALA Agenda Item 10 Page 7 Item #10 Jason and Amy Przymuzala Floodplain Variance 601 Cypress Avenue District 6 Beach February 13, 2008 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next item is agenda item 10. An application of Jason and Amy Przymuzala for a Variance to Section 5B of the Site Plan Ordinance, Floodplain Regulations on property located at 601 Cypress Avenue, District 6, Beach, with one (1) condition. Billy Garrington: Madame Chair, Mr. Secretary, and members of the Planning Commission, for the record, I'm Billy Garrington here on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Strange, I have as hard a time pronouncing that name as you do, but it is actually Jason and Amy Przymuzala. We are for the property at 601 Cypress Avenue. There was one (1) condition in the staff write-up and we are in total agreement with that condition. Joseph Strange: Thank you. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? If not, the Chairman has asked Jay Bernas to review this item. Jay Bernas: Thank you. As the applicant applied for a building permit to add a second story addition, the Planning Department determined that the house was in an AE Floodzone. The existing first floor of the home was at 9.6 foot elevation. The Floodplain Ordinance requires structures be one foot above the base flood elevation, which is 9 feet, which means they would have to be at 10 feet, so they are at % foot below of what is required in the Floodplain Ordinance. So, in order to add the second floor addition, the applicant has two options, to essentially raise the existing structure or obtain a floodplain variance. The Commission believes that the % foot will not add to any of the existing homeowners, the existing floodplain regulations. They felt this was approvable on the consent agenda. Joseph Strange: Thank you Jay. Madame Chair, I have a motion to approve agenda iteml0. Janice Anderson: Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Janice Anderson: We have a second by Mr. Horsley. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE Item #10 Jason and Amy Przymuzala Page 2 HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE Ed Weeden: By vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 10 for consent. ri`W w�+•hy, r� (uL zS� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Katherine M. Grier for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 1628 Independence Boulevard, Suite 1504 (GPIN 1479237563). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE. MEETING DATE: March 11, 2008 ■ Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to operate a church in Suite 1504 of an existing shopping center located on a 1.37 -acre parcel zoned B-2 Community Business District. The shopping center consists of a rectangular one- story brick building of approximately 13,800 square feet of floor area. The total floor area of the unit (Suite 1504) proposed for the church is approximately 1,450 square feet. There are 128 parking spaces located on the east and south sides of the building. ■ Considerations: The applicant proposes to hold religious services on Sundays, from 10:30 a.m. to approximately 1:00 p.m., and Tuesdays, from 7:00 p.m. to approximately 9:30 p.m. Ministry office hours are by appointment only. No more than 100 individuals are present at the facility for any one gathering. Vehicular access to the site is provided by several access points. One right -in and right -out access point is located on Independence Boulevard. Since there is no curb separating the parking area on the subject site from the adjacent bank located southeast of the shopping center, vehicles also use one of the two additional access points serving the bank. The last access point is on the north side of the property at Andrew Jackson Lane. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the church is a compatible use with the surrounding area, there is adequate parking on the site, 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 individuals attending any one service shall not exceed 100 or the number established by the City's Fire Marshall, with the lower KATHERINE M. GRIER March 11, 2008 City Council Hearing Page 2of2 number of the two being the maximum. 2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and inspections from the Planning Department / Permits and Inspections Division and the Fire Department. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the change of use from the Building Official. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Pla ning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager. KATHERINE M. GRIER Agenda Item 8 February 13, 2008 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Leslie Bonilla REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a religious use in an existing shopping center. CUP - Religious Use ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: 1628 Independence Boulevard, Suite 1504 GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14792375630000 4 - BAYSIDE 1.37 acres (unit size is 1,450 square feet) The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to operate a SUMMARY OF REQUEST religious use in one of the units in an existing shopping center. The applicant proposes to hold religious services on Sundays, from 10:30 a.m. to approximately 1:00 p.m., and Tuesdays, from 7:00 p.m. to approximately 9:30 p.m. Ministry office hours are by appointment only. No more than 100 individuals are present at the facility for any one gathering. The strip shopping center consists of a rectangular one-story brick building approximately 13,800 square feet. The total area of the unit (Suite 1504) proposed for the religious use is approximately 1,450 square feet. There are 128 parking spaces located on the east and south sides of the building. The shopping center has several access points that can be utilized. One right -in and right -out access point provides access to and from Independence Boulevard. Since there is no curb separating the parking area on the subject site from the adjacent bank located south of shopping center, vehicles also use one of the two additional access points serving the bank. The last access point is on the north side of the property off of Andrew Jackson Lane. No additional landscaping, parking lot alterations, or exterior building modifications are proposed. KATHERINE M. GRIER Agenda Item 8 Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Existing shopping center. SURROUNDING LAND North: . ' Andrew Jackson Lane USE AND ZONING: . Attached dwellings / A-12 Apartment District South: . Independence Boulevard • Office, retail, and carwash facility / B-2 Community Business District East: . Bank / B-2 Community Business District West: . Drug store / B-2 Community Business District NATURAL RESOURCE AND There are no known significant natural resources or cultural features CULTURAL FEATURES: associated with this site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Independence Boulevard in front of this application is considered a four -lane divided major urban arterial. The Master Transportation Plan proposes a divided facility with bikeway within a 150 -foot right- of-way. There is a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project slated for this area. Independence Boulevard — Phase V (CIP 2.853) is for the construction of a six -lane divided highway from Shore Drive to Haygood Road. Currently, this project is on the list for requested, but not funded projects. TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Independence 41,071 ADT 38,700 ADT (Maximum Existing Land Use — Boulevard Level of Service "E") 595 ADT (Weekdays) 350 ADT (Sundays) Proposed Land Use 3- 546 ADT (Weekdays) 366 ADT (Sundays) 9 AM Weekday Peak Hour Vehicles (entering 22 PM Weekday Peak Hour Vehicles (entering) 28 Sunday Peak Hour Vehicles(entering) ' 2006 Average Daily Trips s as defined by shopping center s as defined by shopping center with church KATHERINE M. GRIER Agenda Item 8 Page 2 WATER: This site currently connects to City water. The existing 5/8 -inch meter (City ID 95068244) may be used or upgraded to accommodate the proposed development. There is an existing 12 -inch City water main in Independence Boulevard. There is an existing 6 -inch City water main in Andrew Jackson Lane. SEWER: This site currently connects to City sanitary sewer. Analysis of Pump Station 307 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an 8 -inch City gravity sanitary sewer in Andrew Jackson Lane. There is an existing 36 -inch Hampton Roads Sanitation District force main in Independence Boulevard. There is an existing 8 -inch gravity sanitary sewer main in Independence Boulevard. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map identifies this site as being within the 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. Evaluation: The proposed church use is compatible with other commercial uses within the shopping center and will not negatively impact any neighboring properties. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. Using the parking requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, parking is adequate at this site to serve all tenants of the shopping center and the proposed church. The site is deficient in street frontage, foundation, and interior parking lot landscaping, as it was developed prior to the adoption of these standards. Independence Boulevard is currently operating at a volume over present capacity; however given that the proposed use is expected to decrease proposed average daily trips to the site, this will not be an issue. The applicant will be required to obtain an occupancy permit from Permits and Inspections, which will ensure that all Building and Fire Code requirements are fulfilled. Thus, this application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed below. CONDITIONS 1. The number of individuals attending anyone service shall not exceed 100 or the number established by the City's Fire Marshall, with the lower number of the two being the maximum. 2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and inspections from the Planning Department / Permits and Inspections Division and the Fire Department. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the change of use from the Building Official. KATHERINE M. GRIER Agenda Item 8 Page 3 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. KATHERINE M. GRIER Agenda Item 8 Page 4 # 1 Date 10/02/01 Description Conditional Use Permit church Action Granted 2 11/26/91 Conditional Use Permit church Granted 3 09/26/88 Conditional Use Permit as pumps Granted 4 5/14/96 Conditional Use Permit use car sales Granted 5 09/13/94 Conditional Use Permit automobile service station Granted 6 03/23/99 Conditional Use Permit car wash with office Granted 7 09/24/96 Conditional Use Permit car wash facility) Granted 8 05/29/90 Conditional Use Permit automobile repair) Granted 9 06/12/89 Conditional Use Permit Childcare Granted 10 08/22/95 Conditional Use Permit automobile repair facility Granted 11 01/08/02 06/09/98 06/11/96 Modification of Conditions Conditional Use Permit (communications tower) Conditional Use Permit monopole tower Granted Granted Granted 12 01/04/05 Zoning Change R7.5 to Conditional B-2 Denied ZONING HISTORY KATHERINE M. GRIER Agenda Item 8 Page 6 C Q O w U I I S33vt £ W Q .9.09 Q� W J a I - 0 c ZZ u Y Y m C NmZ o W co —� a i J N 'O0� N Q ¢ Q Z= U #OD a (np m ° W U to m a. N N N f�) 0 3 1 LL0 zz0 W YV� O azul. LUa� a m=p �U)O .s,o9 a 0yj0 in 0 S+d�L ( I F QxQ zO�W =a LLS3 Vd L � S Z � (ANA-4-inos 30N3aN3dMNI PROPOSED SITE PLAN KATHERINE M. GRIER Agenda Item 8 Page 5 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc.. below: (Attach list if necessary) t,rJ ��u r : Uj� C 7>00S � J&14 Di;Ar e I�?vt.ie :rre`f2ru lreasurPr 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the 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) �11oc(arcl If LLC --To 6 J: 1. c,_Od--d Sr-. 44(Ar �aru J I.�cud�rd J��hn J. L,Jo�lz�r� J� 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) I ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & 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 ,-' If yes. what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? APZ-1 Conditional Use Permit Application Page 7 of 8 Revised 4126-2007 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT KATHERINE M. GRIER Agenda Item 8 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) • ' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. "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. 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. App ical nt's Signature Print Name ho_ry TC -rte,-. Wclxs _IIA Property Ow er's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Narhe Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 8 Revised 4/2612007 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT KATHERINE M. GRIER Agenda Item 8 Page 8 Item #8 Katherine M. Grier Conditional Use Permit 1628 Independence Boulevard, Suite 1504 District 4 Bayside February 13, 2008 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next item is item 8, Katherine M. Grier. An application of Katherine M. Grier for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 1628 Independence Boulevard, Suite 1504, District 4, Bayside, with two (2) conditions. Janice Anderson: Welcome Ms. Grier. Katherine M. Grier: Thank you. Janice Anderson: The conditions, are they acceptable to you? Have you reviewed them? Katherine M. Grier: Yes. Everything looks great. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Ed Weeden: Could you just identify yourself for the record? Katherine M. Grier: Oh yes, I'm Kathy Grier, Overflow Church. Ed Weeden: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? The Chairman has asked David Redmond to review this item. David Redmond: Thank you Mr. Strange. The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to operate a religious use in one of the units in an existing shopping center, the Thoroughgood Shopping Center, near the corner of North Independence Boulevard and Pleasure House Road. The applicant proposes to hold religious services on Sunday from 10:30 a.m. to approximately 1:00 p.m., on Tuesday from 7:00 p.m. to approximately 9:30 p.m. No more than 100 individuals are present at the facility for any one gathering. This strip shopping center consists of a rectangular one-story brick building approximately 13,800 square feet. The total area of this unit proposed for the religious use will be approximately 1,450 square feet, and there are 128 parking spaces located on the east and south sides of the building. The shopping center has multiple access points. This proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with other uses in the shopping center. Staff is unaware of any opposition to the proposal. The Planning staff recommends approval, and the Commission concurs by consent. Joseph Strange: Thank you Dave. Madame Chair, I have a motion to approve agenda item 8. Janice Anderson: Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Janice Anderson: We have a second by Mr. Horsley. ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 8 for consent. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 8 for consent. CUP - for Bulk Sr=ge City of Virginia Beach 9,Fs 0k. o� Al - OUR NAT1- OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER (757)385-4242 FAX(757)427-5626 March 6, 2008 The Honorable Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor Members of City Council Dear Council Members: VBgov.com MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING 1, ROOM 234 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456.9001 I am taking the unusual step of expressing my concern regarding the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Planning staff on the application of Bob Simeone for a conditional use permit for storage trailers at 2633 Production Road. While this might seem to be a relatively minor application, I believe this is not the type of development we should approve. The use of "temporary" trailer, storage containers, sheds, etc, certainly does not encourage the quality of development we want as a community. The applicant certainly has the preferred options of adding onto his building to accommodate the expanded spaced needs or rent storage space from one of the many commercial storage areas for records storage. The many storage centers throughout the community have been carefully reviewed and required to construct permanent facilities with screening and landscaping. To begin to allow temporary storage containers on site seems to me to risk a precedent that we should not establish. I would urge Council to deny the requested conditional use permit and to encourage staff to promote a higher quality of development in our industrial and commercial parks. With Pride in Our City, Jame K. ore City a r cc Jack Whitney ��yy qui =Sl CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Bob Simeone for a Conditional Use Permit for storage trailers on property located at 2633 Production Road (GPIN 1496880032). DISTRICT 6 — BEACH. MEETING DATE: March 11, 2008 ■ Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for bulk storage behind an existing industrial building located on a 35,022 square foot parcel. The proposed `bulk storage' consists of the use of one (1) containerized cargo trailer for the purpose of storage office files. The site is located in the Greater than 75 dB DNL AICUZ and APZ-2. ■ Considerations: The applicant proposes one (1) trailer eight feet wide by forty feet long (8' x 40') painted to match the color of the existing building. This trailer will be used to store office files for the business. The trailer will be placed to be not visible from the street and will be screened and secured with privacy fencing. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposal is appropriate to the overall existing use of the site, the trailer will not be visible from a public right-of-way, 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 bulk storage trailer shall be located to the rear of the property behind the existing building in an area enclosed with fencing. 2. The fence enclosing the storage yard shall be a minimum height of six (6) feet. Slats may be used within the existing chain link fence to make the trailers structurally opaque from the street. 3. The trailer shall be allowed for a period of five (5) years, at which time an administrative approval may be granted for one extension of two (2) years. Any additional time extensions will require a modification of this Use BOB SIMEONE March 11, 2008 City Council Hearing Page 2of2 Permit. 4. The Use Permit shall be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure continued compliance with these conditions. 5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits and inspections from the Planning Department's Permits and Inspections Division and the Fire Department. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: BOB SIMEONE Agenda Item 11 February 13, 2008 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Bulk Storage. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located at 2633 Production Road. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14968800320000 6 - BEACH .804 acres or 35,022 square feet SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant had been deferred by Planning Commission at the December 12, 2007 Hearing to work with staff to revise their request for bulk storage. The applicant had requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow two trailers for storage of office files to the rear of the property behind the existing building. The applicant has reduced the request to one trailer. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Developed site with a building and paved parking areas in the front and rear SURROUNDING LAND North: Across Production Road is office -warehouse/ 1-1 Light Industrial USE AND ZONING: District South: . Office Warehouse / 1-1 Light Industrial District East: . Office Warehouse / 1-1 Light Industrial District West: . Office Warehouse / 1-1 Light Industrial District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site does not have any significant historical, cultural or CULTURAL FEATURES: environmental features associated with it. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 75 dB Ldn and in APZ-2 surrounding NAS Oceana. BOB SIMEONE Agenda Item 11 Page 1 IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): The proposed use will not have an impact on traffic. No additional traffic engineering comments were provided regarding this proposal. WATER & SEWER: This site is connected to City water and sewer. FIRE: If approved the applicant will coordinate location with the Department of Permits and Inspections regarding the proximity of the storage trailers to the existing building. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for a variety of employment uses including business parks, offices and appropriately located industrial and employment support uses. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. Evaluation: The applicant had been deferred by Planning Commission at the December 12, 2007 hearing to work with staff to revise their initial request for a conditional use permit to allow two trailers for storage of office files behind the existing office warehouse. The applicant has revised the request to allow one trailer eight feet wide by forty feet long (8' x 40') painted to match the color of the existing building. This trailer will be used to store office files for the business. The trailer will be placed to be not visible from the street and will be screened and secured with privacy fencing. Additionally, the applicant has worked with the Planning Department to locate a small shed on the site for storage of lawn maintenance items. The Conditional Use Permit request for one bulk storage trailer is acceptable with the conditions listed below. CONDITIONS 1. The bulk storage trailer shall be located to the rear of the property behind the existing building in an area enclosed with fencing. 2. The fence enclosing the storage yard shall be a minimum height of six (6) feet. Slats may be used within the existing chain link fence to make the trailers structurally opaque from the street. BOB SIMEONE Agenda Item 11 Page.2 3. The trailer shall be allowed for a period of five (5) years, at which time an administrative approval may be granted for one extension of two (2) years. Any additional time extensions will require a modification of this Use Permit. 4. The Use Permit shall be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure continued compliance with these conditions. 5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits and inspections from the Planning Department's Permits and Inspections Division and the Fire Department. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes 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. BOB SIMEONE Agenda Item 11 Page 3 b LIMtTS OF OPCN CUl AND PAVtmir'.N-. C. --90(ty;..) ORIGINAL PROPOSAL OF TWO TRAILERS BOB SIMEONE Agenda Item 11 Page 4 BOB SIMEONE Agenda Item 11 Page 5 BOB SIMEONE Agenda Item 11 Page 6 1 08/12/03 Conditional Use Permit Bulk Storage Yard Granted 02/24/98 Conditional Use Permit Contractor's Storage Yard Granted 2 03/13/01 Conditional Use Permit Bulk Storage Yard Granted 3 07/05/00 Conditional Use Permit Bulk Storage Yard Granted 4 05/12/98 Conditional Use Permit Outside Storage of Vehicles Granted 5 10/14/97 Conditional Use Permit Contractor's Storage Yard Granted 6 08/28/89 Conditional Use Permit Storage Granted ZONING HISTORY BOB SIMEONE Agenda Item 11 Page 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT J 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) b%G�� a,�t___ Q�� S�iiL.e ei✓t $ �1�-r/%yto�oN$ 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) U � r "IF N� 1?e�� ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, cr other unincorporated organization. 8 See next page for footnotes Does an official or employee of the Ci of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land? Yes No If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and the nature of their interest? Conditional Use Permit Application Page 9 of 10 Revised 7132007 BOB SIMEONE Agenda Item 11 Page 8 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 11 ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) /vorC- ' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent - subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person owr 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. 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. Appli ignature Print Name Property Owner's Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Conditional Use Permit Application Page 10 of 10 Revised 7/3/2007 BOB SIMEONE Agenda Item 11 Page 9 Item #11 Bob Simeone Conditional Use Permit 2633 Production Road District 6 Beach February 13, 2008 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next item is agenda item 11, Bob Simeone. An application of Bob Simeone for a Conditional Use Permit for storage trailers on property located at 2633 Production Road, District 6, Beach, with four (4) conditions. Bob Simeone: Good afternoon. I'm aware of the conditions that have been set forth and I agree with them. Ed Weeden: For the record, please identify yourself. Bob Simeone: I'm Bob Simeone. Ed Weeden: Thank you. Bob Simeone: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Mr. Simeone? I believe there was one (1) extra condition. There are five (5) conditions, and it was added in between. Have you reviewed that one? Bob Simeone: Yes. I have. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Joseph Strange: Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? If not, the Chairman has asked Jay Bernas to review this item. Jay Bernas: Thank you. The applicant was deferred by the Planning Commission on December 12, 2007. Originally, the applicant had requested two trailers for storage of office files to be located behind an existing office warehouse. In working with staff, the applicant has revised his request to one (1) trailer, 8' x 40' long, and the trailer will be placed so it is not visible from the street. It will be screened and secured with a privacy fence. In addition, the applicant will be placing his combustible materials in a separate shed, and with the added condition of an annual review for compliance. The Commission felt that this should be placed on the consent agenda. Joseph Strange: Thank you Jay. Madame Chair, I have a motion to approve agenda item 11. Janice Anderson: Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Janice Anderson: We have a second by Mr. Horsley. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 11 for consent. Mat; HIO f"r C:oncditorial Zoning Change tro:n AG -2 to ()-? CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Application of Precision Measurements, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional 0-1 Office District on property located at 3021 Holland Road (GPIN 1495232369). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE. MEETING DATE: March 11, 2008 ■ Background: The applicant proposes to rezone a 38,425 square foot parcel, zoned AG -2 Agricultural District, to Conditional 0-1 Office District. The applicant is proffering use of the parcel for a 9,570 square foot office building with associated parking and landscaping. The site is located within the Greater than 75dB DNL AICUZ and within APZ-2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site to be within Strategic Growth Area (SGA) 11, West Holland Area. The Plan recommends that developable land located within the portion of the SGA where the subject parcel is located be used for non-residential uses, including low -intensity retail and service uses that would be compatible with any adjacent existing residential neighborhood. ■ Considerations: The majority of the building's floor area (5,000 square feet) will house a land surveying business. The applicant anticipates that the remaining 4,570 square feet will be leased to professional service providers. Hours of operation for the surveying business will be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Approximately 30 land surveying employees will be based at the proposed location; however, it is anticipated that only up to 15 employees will be present on-site daily. The proposed 60 -foot wide building is situated ten (10) feet from the western property line and approximately 105 feet from Holland Road. Forty-one (41) parking spaces are provided east of the building. The stormwater management facility is located along the easternmost side property line. The applicant has agreed to preserve and protect the existing mature trees located within the front yard (between the building and Holland Road) and along the northern boundary of property. All other landscaping shall be provided in accordance to the City's landscape regulations. PRECISION MEASUREMENTS March 11, 2008 City Council Hearing Page 2 of 2 The exterior building material of the proposed office building will consist of brick and glass with exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) and metal accents or trim. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposed development is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, the proposal is compatible with the AICUZ and APZ, 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 as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC. Agenda Item 2 February 13, 2008 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Leslie Bonilla REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional 0-1 Office District. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: 3021 Holland Road GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14952323690000 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 38,425 square feet The applicant proposes to rezone the existing AG -2 SUMMARY OF REQUEST Agricultural District property to Conditional 0-1 Office District and to develop the site with a 9,570 square foot office building with associated parking and landscaping. The majority of the building's floor area (5,000 square feet) will house a land surveying business; the applicant anticipates that the remaining 4,570 square feet will be leased to professional service providers. Hours of operation for the surveying business are typically from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Approximately 30 land surveying employees will be based at the proposed location; however, it is anticipated that up to 15 employees will be present on-site daily. The proposed 60 -foot wide building is situated ten (10) feet from the western property line and approximately 105 feet from Holland Road. Forty-one (41) parking spaces are provided east of the building, and a trash dumpster is located approximately five (5) feet from the rear property line. The stormwater management facility is located along the easternmost side property line. The applicant has agreed to preserve and protect the existing mature trees located within the front yard (between the building and Holland Road) and along the northern boundary of property. All other landscaping shall be provided in accordance to the City's landscape regulations. PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC. Agenda Item 2 Page 1 The exterior building material of the proposed office building will consist of brick and glass with exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) and metal accents or trim. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals is required to locate the trash dumpster, as proposed, within the required 10 -foot rear yard setback. If a variance is not approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals to install the dumper as proposed, then the applicant has agreed that the dumpster will be moved out of the required 10 -foot rear yard setback. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped site SURROUNDING LAND North: Holland Road USE AND ZONING: Industrial / 1-1 Light Industrial District South: . Undeveloped / AG -2 Agricultural District East: Large lot single-family / AG -2 Agricultural District West: . Large lot single-family / AG -2 Agricultural District NATURAL RESOURCE AND There are no known significant natural resources or cultural features CULTURAL FEATURES: associated with this site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of Greater than 75 dB Ldn and within Accident Potential Zone 2 surrounding NAS Oceana. The proposed uses are considered compatible with the inclusion of noise level reducing construction features in the buildings as set forth in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Holland Road is a two-lane minor suburban arterial. The Virginia Department of Transportation's Holland Road Phase VI project (CIP 2-158) is currently scheduled to begin construction in February 2014. This project is for the construction of a four -lane divided roadway from Dam Neck Road to Nimmo Parkway. The subject parcel will be impacted by right-of-way acquisition required for the Holland Road Phase VI project. The submitted site plan provides for the ultimate Holland Road right-of-way. PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC. Agenda Item 2 Page 2 TRAFFIC: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Holland Road 17,000 ADT 16,300 ADT (Level of Existing Land Use —10 Service "E") ADT Proposed Land Use 3- 110 Average uany i "Pb P as defined by 0.88 acres zoned AG -2 (one single-family house) 3 as defined by 10,000 square feet of general office uses PUBLIC WORKS / ENGINEERING: A reservation of eight (8) feet may be required during detailed site plan review such that the ultimate right-of-way of 100 feet, in accordance with the Master Transportation Plan amended 10/12/04, is achieved. WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is a 16 -inch City water main in Holland Road. SEWER: There is an 8 -inch City force main in Holland Road. Private grinder pump and force main may be an option. Analysis of the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future flows can be accommodated. POLICE: The applicant must provide a photometric (lighting) plan for review and approval by City staff during detailed site plan review. Full cut-off fixtures should be used for all parking lot lighting. Any building -mounted wall fixtures (wall -packs) should be designed to direct light straight down and not outward or upward. All lighting on the site should be consistent with those standards recommended by the"Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. Recommendation: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request with the submitted proffers. The proffers are provided below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site to be within Strategic Growth Area 11, West Holland Area. The Plan recommends that developable land located within the southern portion of this area be used for non-residential uses, including low -intensity retail and service uses that would be compatible with any adjacent residential neighborhood. Evaluation: High noise and accident potential zones limit allowable development and uses on the site. The proposed office building is an allowable use that is compatible with the AICUZ and APZ and is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is also compatible with the land uses in this PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC. Agenda Item 2 Page 3 area, which primarily include industrial, large -lot residential, and undeveloped parcels. As such, Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the proffers listed below. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the property is developed, it shall be developed as an office building substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "PRECISION MEASUREMENTS OFFICE COMPLEX, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA", dated 07/02/07, prepared by Scott Stamm, P.E., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Concept Plan"; PROFFER 2: When the building depicted on the Concept Plan is developed, its exterior appearance shall be substantially similar in architectural features, details and building materials to the exhibit entitled "Precision Measurements, Inc 3D renderings", dated 10/15/07, prepared by Ionic Dezign Studios, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Elevations"); PROFFER 3: When the Property is developed, the exterior materials utilized on the building depicted on the Elevations shall be brick and glass with EIFS and metal accents or trim; and PROFFER 4: The Granter shall submit a Landscape Plan for the Property to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to final Site Plan approval. PROFFER 5: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable as they dictate the level of quality of the project. They ensure a perimeter landscape buffer is installed between the proposed office use and the adjacent residential uses to the north. The proffers also ensure that the building placement and design is compatible with the surrounding residential community. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated October 29, 2007, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC. Agenda Item 2 Page 4 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. PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC. Agenda Item 2 Page 5 O&W ,.,,. WOWW a .,,,r a ..s -4e- s,.c • r s rrWoso P9 a ow as ,O. / Yr ""mow OW0.0 e� rw t++0 w n/r000 it M1ff f r„ rs 3 0-1 -.*1 � r3 s 0 ,0j,r �f00"Wo SITE PLANPROP0SED ENTS, INC- ISION 2 PRECISION M Agenda Page E ATInN PR BUILDINGr-Lr-v. ION MEASUREMENT, INC. PRECIS Agenda SItem 2 Page 7 4ap H-10 �Mnnzr�,nu %�lfnnnsaewn.v�is�sFn F.s.., C:onditionai Zoning Change from AC; -2 to 04 # Date Description Action 1 2/12/02 Modification of Conditions Granted 1/09/01 Zoning Change (AG -1 & AG -2 to Conditional 1-1) & Granted 1/09/01 Conditional Use Permit builder contractors and Granted 2 1/12/99 i Zoning Change (AG -2 to Conditional 1-1) & Granted 1/12/99 Conditional Use Permit builder contractors and Granted 3 6/09/98 Conditional Use Permit telecommunication antennas Granted 4 5/28/02 Conditional Use Permit animal shelter Granted 5 2/23/99 Conditional Use Permit communication tower Granted 6 7/03/01 Zoning Change (AG -2 to B-2) & Granted 7/03/01 j Conditional Use Permit automobile service station and car wash Granted 7 2/14/95 Zoning Chane 0-2 to Conditional 1-1 Granted 8 2/22/05 Zoning Change (AG -2 to Conditional B-2) & Granted 2/22/05 , Conditional Use Permit automobile repair arae I Granted 9 10/23/07 1 Modification of Conditions Granted r1kolz I I z 0 PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC. Agenda Item 2 Page 8 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) Precision Measurements, Inc., a Virginia corporation: Dianne Guy, President; Pauline Leitz, Vice President, Ken Leitz, Director 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owneris 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) Loutricia Dianne Guy, Noah S. Leitz, Kenneth E. Leitz 2. List all businesses that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) X Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & ` See next page for footnotes Conditional Rezoning Application Page 11 of 12 Revised 9/12004 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC. Agenda Item 2 Page 9 z C> v c5 z z 0 Nw P4 z 0 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) Ionic Design -Architectural Scott Stamm, Civil Engineer R. Edward Bourdon, Jr., Sykes, Bourdon, Ahem & Levy, P.C. 1 "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for 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. Precision Mea rements, In By: Dianne Guy, President icants Signature ,,.. _ Print Name Loutricia Dianne Guy, Property Owner - Noah S. Leitz, Property Owner Kenneth E. Leitz, Property Owner Conditional Rezoning Application Page 12 of 12 Revised 91112004 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PRECISION MEASUREMENTS, INC. Agenda Item 2 Page 10 Item #2 Precision Measurements, Inc. Change of Zoning District Classification 3021 Holland Road District 7 Princess Anne February 13, 2008 CONSENT Janice Anderson: The next matter is the consent agenda. Our Vice Chair will handle this portion of the meeting. Joseph Strange: Chairman, this afternoon we have eight (8) items on the consent agenda. The first matter is agenda item 2, Precision Measurements, Inc. An application of Precision Measurements, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional 0-1 Office District on property located at 3021 Holland Road, District 7, Princess Anne. Janice Anderson: Welcome Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Madame Chair. For the record, Eddie Bourdon, Virginia Beach attorney, and it's a privilege to represent Precision Measurement, Inc., and we appreciate being on the consent agenda. I would mention one thing. The noise zones are flipped. That should be corrected, but this property is actually in the 70-75 dB, not the above 75 dB. It makes no difference whatsoever. We appreciate being on the consent agenda. Thank you. Joseph Strange: Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? The Chairman has asked Al Henley to review this item. Al Henley: Thank you. The address for this site is 3021 Holland Road. The applicant proposes to rezone an existing AG -2 Agricultural District property to a Conditional 0-1 Office District and develop this site with a 9,570 square foot of office buildings with associated parking and landscaping. The majority of the building's floor area is 5,000 square feet and will house a land surveying business; the applicant anticipates the remaining square footage will be leased to professional service providers. The hours of operation for the surveying business are typically from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Staff recommends approval of this application. There are five (5) proffers that go along with this particular application; so, therefore the Planning Commission has placed this on the consent agenda. Thank you. Joseph Strange: Thank you Al. Madame Chair, I have a motion to approve agenda item 2. Janice Anderson: Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: Second. Janice Anderson: We have a second by Mr. Horsley. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS AYE CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE LIVAS AYE REDMOND AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By vote of 11-0, the Board has approved item 2 for consent. Janice Anderson: Thank you. In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF -6917 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay Wilson CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: February 27, 2008 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Precision Measurements, Inc. The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 11, 2008. 1 have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated October 29, 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. BKW/bm Enclosure cc: KathleHHassen PREPARED BY: SYY£S. ROURDON. "M & LEVY, P.0 PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS LOUTRICIA DIANNE GUY, NOAH S. LEITZ and KENNETH E. LEITZ TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made this 29th day of October, 2007, by and between LOUTRICIA DIANNE GUY, NOAH S. LEITZ and KENNETH E. LEITZ, Grantors; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors are the owners of that certain parcel of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately o.88 acres and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference said property hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from AG -2 Agricultural District to Conditional 0-1 Office District; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and GPIN: 1495-23-2369 I PREPARED BY: M SMS, BOURDON, M AHPRN & LEVY. P.0 WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical redevelopment, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted, as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be developed as an office building substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "PRECISION MEASUREMENTS OFFICE COMPLEX, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.", dated 07/02/07, prepared by Scott Stamm, P.E., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Concept Plan"). 2. When the building depicted on the Concept Plan is developed, its exterior appearance shall be substantially similar in architectural features, details and building materials the exhibit entitled "Precision Measurements, Inc 3D renderings", dated 10/15/07, prepared by Ionic Dezign Studios, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Elevations"). 3. When the Property is developed, the exterior materials utilized on the building depicted on the Elevations shall be brick and glass with EIFS and metal accents or trim. 4. The Grantor shall submit a Landscape Plan for the Property to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to final Site Plan approval. 2 PREPARED BY: M SYKES, $OURDON, M AUM & LEVY. R.0 5. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. All references hereinabove to the AG -2 and 0-1 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in. the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an grdinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied, and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; 3 PREPARED BY: SYM. $OMON. AHW & LEVY. P.C. (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. a] WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: A(SEAL) Loutricia Dianne Guy STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: S The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3 'f" day of October, 2007, by Loutricia Dianne Guy, Grantor. She is personally known to me or has produced identification. -A�0qg5-1(et Notary Public r My Commission Expires: 1113 010Y Notary Registration No.: 62 q yl ( ( 5 WITNESS the following signature and seal: i Grantor: !` ,.,,. Noah S. Leitz STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: SEAL) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this� day of October, 2007, by Noah S. Leitz, Grantor. He is personally known to me or has produced identification. Notary Public My Commission Expires: /13 �.iotary Registration 0 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: 2007, Kenneth Ee-reitz The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 318 t day of October, by Kenneth E. Leitz, Grantor. He is personally known to me or has produced identification. Notary Public My Commission Expires: ///.30 ad' IVTotary Registration No.: 02 93-/(r / 7 EXHIBIT "A" All of that certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (formerly Princess Anne County), more particularly shown and designated upon a certain plat entitled, "Property of Mrs. Edward Hunter -Located near Landstown in Princess Anne County, Virginia, Scale: 1"=1oo', August 20, 1958, W B. Gallup -County Surveyor", which said plat is attached to Deed from Jackie Hunter to Alvester Vaughan, dated March 11, 1959, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 673, at Page 558, the said lot, piece or parcel of land herewith conveyed being more particularly shown and described on said plat as "Alvester Vaughan i.o Ac. from Mrs. Edward Hunter"; the said parcel of land being more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Western side of Holland Swamp Road where the same is intersected by a line dividing the property herewith conveyed from the property of Flossie Cooper, and from said point of beginning running thence South 47 degrees 23' West 10 feet to a pin; thence continuing along the same course 284.5 feet to a point; thence turning and running in a Southeasterly direction, South 44 degrees 15' East 168 feet to a point; thence turning and running in a Northeasterly direction, North 47 degrees 23' East, 284.5 feet to a pin; thence continuing along the said course to feet to the Western line of Holland Swamp Road; thence turning and running in a Northerly direction along the Western line of Holland Swamp Road, North 44 degrees 15' West 1o8 feet to a point, the point of beginning. SAVE AND EXCEPT that land obtained by the Commonwealth of Virginia by Deed dated May 2, 2007, recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, as Instrument #2007071900097619o. GPIN: 1495-23-2369 ConditionalRezone/PrecisionMeasurements/Proffer PREPARED BY: .. SYVES. ROURDON. AHERN & LEVY. P.C. K. APPOINTMENTS BIKEWAYS and TRAILS ADVISORY COMMISSION COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS II. CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS SCHEDULE FOR 2008: a. b. C. d. e. f. 9. h. i. J• k. July 1 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning July 8 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning November 4 Cancel all sessions — Election Day November 1 I Cancel all sessions — City Holiday November 18 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning November 25 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning December 2 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning December 9 Briefing, Informal, Formal and Planning December 16 Cancel all sessions December 23 Cancel all sessions December 30 Cancel all sessions M. N NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN WORKSHOPS April 8 (Workshop) April 15 (Workshop) April 17 (Public Hearing) April 22 (Workshop) April 22 (Public Hearing) April 29 (Workshop) Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Green Run High School — 6 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Chamber — 6 p.m. Council Conference Room May 6 (Reconciliation Workshop) Council Conference Room May 13 (Adoption) Council Chamber — 6 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ONE -DAY RETREAT APRIL 21, 2008 8:30 a.m. -- 5:30 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM TOWN CENTER CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING: SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS ENHANCED TAX EXEMPTION FOR William M. Macali, HISTORIC STRUCTURES Deputy City Attorney V O 1 CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING: DATE: March 4, 2008 M B L D James K. Spore, City C E L E D H Manager C R A W PAGE: 1 S I E J L N U N I Y Y T E D N O A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N O R E S O ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E E E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D I CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING: ENHANCED TAX EXEMPTION FOR William M. Macali, HISTORIC STRUCTURES Deputy City Attorney II CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING: STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE REPORT James K. Spore, City Manager II.4VN CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION CERTIFIED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y I/VII-E F/G/H MINUTES Informal/Formal Sessions 0226/08 APPROVED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1-1 RES to ESTABLISH a Military Economic ADOPTED, AS 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Development Advisory Committee to explore REVISED to 18 retire potential economic development opportunities military officers Oceana NAS/Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek BY CONSENT 2 RES to SUPPORT an Adoption -Friendly ADOPTED, AS 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Animal Control Facility REVISED 3 ORD to AUTHORIZE franchise agreements f ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Open -Air Cafes to Ocean Beach Club Owner. CONSENT Association t/a Tortugas Cafe 4 ORD to TRANSFER $202,352 schools ADOPTED, BY 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y projects to Newtown Elementary School CONSENT Replacement: a. $154,927 Landstown High School Addition b. $ 4,707 Ocean Lakes High School Addition C. $10,653 Arrowhead Elementary School Replacement d. $9,582 Joint City/School Admin Building e. $8,391 Hermitage Elementary School Replacement E $4,092 Comprehensive Modernization Study—Phasell CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH APPOINTMENTS: SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS BIKEWAYS and TRAILS ADVISORY RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S COMMISSION V O I HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATE: March 4, 2008 M B L D C E L E D H C R' A W PAGE: 2 S I E J L N U N 1 Y Y T E D N O A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N O R E S O ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E E E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D J APPOINTMENTS: BIKEWAYS and TRAILS ADVISORY RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S COMMISSION HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD Sharon Slipow- APPOINTED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Family Member Three year term Brian Baldwin 1/l/08-12/31/10 Consumer HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD Edward N. Duguia REAPPOINTED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Viciy G. Gray Three year term Susan D. Hellstrom 4/1/08 — 3/31/11 Dr. Christopher Hooper Linda L. Lilley Mary Redd Nelson Leonard A. Troxell, Jr. MILITARY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADM Joe Donnell APPOINTED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ADM Dick Dunleavy Five year term 3/1/08-2/28/13 ADM Ed Clexton ADM Phil Olson ADM Fred Metz ADM Mark Gemmill Lt. COL John Panneton Joseph Gianascoli Daniel Walters Roger Whiteway ADM William Ecker Luke Hilliard Adalberto M. Diaz CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH THE PLANNING COUNCIL SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Rosemary Wilson REAPPOINTED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Three year term V O 1 4/l/08-3/31/11 DATE: March 4, 2008 M B L K/L D C E L E D H C R A W T PAGE: 3 S I E J L N U N I T E D N O A D H U L W AGENDA E Z Y L N N O R E S O ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE P E E 4b/ E A R I V O O H L R Y S N F N A N D PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN WORKSHOPS April 8 (Workshop) April 15 (Workshop) April 17 (Public Hearing) April 22 (Workshop) April 22 (Public Hearing) April 29 (Workshop) May 6 (Reconciliation Workshop) May 13 (Adoption) Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Green Run High School — 6 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Chamber — 6 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Council Chamber — 6 p.m. THE PLANNING COUNCIL Rosemary Wilson REAPPOINTED 10-0 A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Three year term 4/l/08-3/31/11 K/L NEW BUSINESS CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS SCHEDULE N .O A C T I O N FOR 2008: M ADJOURNMENT 6:32pm PUBLIC COMMENTS — Non Agenda Items 11 Speakers a' Assessments 6:32 — 7:18 pm b. Lynnhaven Spoil Site C. Bayside Rec Center PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN WORKSHOPS April 8 (Workshop) April 15 (Workshop) April 17 (Public Hearing) April 22 (Workshop) April 22 (Public Hearing) April 29 (Workshop) May 6 (Reconciliation Workshop) May 13 (Adoption) Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Green Run High School — 6 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Chamber — 6 p.m. Council Conference Room Council Conference Room Council Chamber — 6 p.m.