The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNOVEMBER 10, 2009 II CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MAYOR WILLIAM D Sh'SSOMS, JR., At-Large ,7CI:: MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District 4 GLENN R. DA~S, Rose Hall - District 3 WILLIAM R. DeSTEPH, At-Large HARRY E. DIEZEL, Kempsville - District 2 ROBERT M. DYER, Centerville - District I BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District 7 JOHN E. UHRIN, Beach - District 6 RON A. ~LLANUEVA, At-Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES ('ITY MANAGER JAMES K SPORE ('fTY ATTORNEY MARK D. STILES CITY ASSESSOR JERALD BANAGAN CITY AUDITOR LYNDON S. REMIAS CITY CLERK RUTf{ HODGES FRASER, MMC CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 10 November 2009 I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS: - Conference Room - A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Jack Whitney, Director - Planning B. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Jason Cosby, Director - Public Works C. DIGITAL BILLBOARDS William Macali, City Attorney II. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REVIEW V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, V1RGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE (757) 385-4303 FAX (757) 385-5669 E-MAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov.com 2:30 PM 4:30 PM VI. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA - City Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. B. INVOCATION: Reverend Steve Christenson Senior Chaplain, Virginia Beach Correctional Center 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. MINUTE S 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS October 27,2009 G. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. EXCESS CITY PROPERTY a. N elms Lane b. 1000 Red Mill Boulevard c. 1544 New York Avenue d. 1540 New York Avenue, 232 Gatewood Avenue, 1525 Ohio Avenue, 109 and 111 Bob Lane 2. BAKER ROAD Extended Project Condemnation of Property 3. WEST NECK ROAD INTERIM SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Condemnation of Property I. CONSENT AGENDA II J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinances DECLARING City property to be EXCESS and AUTHORIZING the City Manager to exchange, for the Zurich Arch property owned by Habitat for Humanity, the property at: a. Nelms Lane b. 1000 Red Mill Boulevard 2. Ordinances DECLARING City property to be EXCESS and AUTHORIZING the City Manager to sell the property at: a. 1544 New York Avenue to Mark W.e. McGohan b. 1540 New York Avenue, 232 Gatewood Avenue, 1525 Ohio Avenue and 109 and 111 Bob Lane to Ocean Bay Homes, Inc. 3. An Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple for the right-of-way for Baker Road Extended with temporary and permanent easements, by agreement or condemnation 4. An Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple for the rights-of-way for West Neck Road Interim Safety Improvement with temporary and permanent easements, by agreement or condemnation 5. Resolution to REFER to the Planning Commission an Ordinance AMENDING SIll, S215 and S216 and ADDING S218 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re: defining electronic display billboards and establishing requirements for such billboards (requested by Councilman Diezel) 6. Resolution to SUPPLEMENT the 2010 Legislative Agenda to request the Governor and the Virginia General Assembly fully fund the Virginia National Defense Industrial Authority (VNDIA) and support legislation to provide additional monies to the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance (HRMFFA) to promote and protect defense spending and other federal activities in Hampton Roads (requested by Councilman Uhrin) 7. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $64,600 Grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the 2009 Infrastructure Protection Activities Program to the FY2009-10 Operating Budget of the Police Department re: dive equipment and training for the Police Marine Unit. 8. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE from the United States Department of Justice Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant $214,208 re: Public Safety and Criminal Processing as follows: a. $13,000 to the Police Department re: the purchase of night vision goggles b. $30,940 to the Police Department re: the purchase of surveillance equipment c. $43,000 to the Police Department re: security improvement to the 4th Precinct parking lot d. $93,875 to the Sheriff re: security camera upgrade e. $19,390 to Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court re: a contracted Expungement Clerk f. $2,148 to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court re: an on-line training subscription g. $11,855 to the Circuit Court re: Media Evidence Display System 9. Ordimmce to ESTABLISH Capital Project #3-151, ACCEPT the Grant and APPROPRIATE $800,000 from the United States Department of Justice re: mobile communications services and equipment supporting regional communication needs for the COPS Law Enforcement Technology K. PLANNING 1. Ordinance to AMEND the Comprehensive Plan re: The Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan and REPEAL the 1991 Virginia Beach Central Business District (CBD) Master Plan. 2. Application of BRYANT & STRATTON COLLEGE for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a private university or college in the existing building at 4740 Baxter Road. DISTR1CT 2 - KEMPSVILLE RECOMMENDATION APPROV AL 3. Application of BEACH BINGO, INe., t/a PEMBROKE HALL for a Conditional Use Permit re relocation of existing bingo operation to the Chimney Hill Shopping Center at Suite 809, 3600 Holland Road. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL RECOMMENDA TION APPROV AL II 4. Resolution to APPROVE the location of the existing mobile home at 2348 Vaughan Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDA TION APPROVAL 5. Ordinance to AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO): a. S211 re: time limitations on political campaign signs posted on private property. b. S201 re: setbacks for front porches (requested by Council Ladies Rosemary Wilson and Barbara Henley). c. S203, 900, 901, 902 and 905 re: The Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan. RECOMMENDA TION APPROV AL 6 Application of NEW FIRST COLONIAL ASSOCIATES for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-15 Residential District to Conditional 0-1 Office District re a dental office at 5315 Bonneydale Road (deferred by City Council October 27, 2009). DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE STAFF RECOMMENDA nON PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DENIAL APPROVAL 7. Application of ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional B-1A Limited Business and P-1 Preservation District at Chestnut Oak Way (deferred by City Council June 9, July 14, and August 11, 2009). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROV AL L. APPOINTMENTS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD PLANNING COMMISSION RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) REVIEW and ALLOCATION (COG) VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORA nON M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT ********************************** PUBLIC COMMENT Non-Agenda Items Each Speaker will be allowed 3 minutes and each subject is limited to 3 Speakers ********************************** Thursday, November 12th ANNUAL JOINT MEETING General Assembly, City Council and School Board City Council Sessions November 17 - Workshop November 24 - Informal and Formal Sessions December 1 and 8 - Informal and Formal Sessions Town Hall Meetings - 2010-11 Municipal Budget Wednesday, November 18, 7:00 PM Green Run High School, 1700 Dahlia Drive Thursday, December 3, 7:00 PM Kellam High School, 2323 Holland Road *********** 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 1I/1O/09afb www.vbgov.com II I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS: - Conference Room - 2:30 PM A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Jack Whitney, Director - Planning B. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Jason Cosby, Director - Public Works C. DIGITAL BILLBOARDS William Macali, City Attorney II. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REVIEW II V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room- A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 4:30 PM II VI. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA - City Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. B. INVOCATION: Reverend Steve Christenson Senior Chaplain, Virginia Beach Correctional Center 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 October 27,2009 G. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA iRtsulu tinn CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. EXCESS CITY PROPERTY a. Nelms Lane b. 1000 Red Mill Boulevard c. 1544 New York Avenue d. 1540 New York Avenue, 232 Gatewood Avenue, 1525 Ohio Avenue, 109 and 111 Bob Lane 2. BAKER ROAD Extended Project Condemnation of Property 3. WEST NECK ROAD INTERIM SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Condemnation of Property . .:,:,~\~-~..,~-.. ~, .,~.. II '.... "( :'::'~~: ,."\ \ ~/-,,-, .-!,... J ~':' ;,,("'~'I:~.\ .<....... "~.,;."'~. .~::';!..~~~ j~.i-,qJIC HJ:!~~!~~ _~)(C~$S C1TY {~!lQ.~!;.RTY EX~JJ..~Nr~1; r-e Virginia Beach City Councilr:lj-,)id " fll,;BlIC !-fEARING on thA ,j':;OC3itieJr "nd c:v;har:~e of Excess City Property, -'-'Jo:',;jay, '\',)'!emlJer 10, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., It' rile ." '~clmcil Chamber of the City Hal! Sudc.HI'g ,Building #1) at the Virginia Be,;!I;h "v1un:ci,J<li r:er.ter, Virginia Beach, \;,';~inia_ Thf' ;JrfJpe,ties dre iecated at Red "Vl1!1 t-3oulevdrd ";Plr-..l: 2'U4-36-7J01)ll1d :;elms L,lI>; .: PL\I: l'l6"7-77-038(3). T,-,f' ;:,t~rpo.')t-l cf ~~"is ,"'~~3nng 'viii ')e to f)I.'Jtain j:>Lblic nput tQ ""t,.,'rr''lo-! 'Nh.>ther t!,esf' prope,t,es ',I'ci id JE' :1. Gtared "Excess of tile City':. 1,-"1S' ;,' 'ici.j 01' l)therN,3e c;onv..;yed. , :i!)1) 1P~ phY3ica1lyli<;abled }, 'Visually impaired L,r~rl I':'pd ,I:"". t"ICi'~ it '!~I.; '",'dng, pi.,,'he call tile CITY CLERK'S }FFICE dt 427-4303. \ry ',upstiors GOI~':err'ng tl':5 ,'lo'tt.er :;rculd '1e iJl(~~cted 70 the l)ff~ce 'Jf .:(<'~dl ;: :t.";r:e, :uilGlng 012, f;c,)m :;92, ,1t !,~, '; .," ,ii-' <)P<..h V:,r:G'p,Ji C,llter. n'Ie' ,~,."rl' -:. t ~tt j iir:e .C ;If:; ;,:'h:ne rli..i!":1cer ;~:; \ ',~!) -; >l:~::' --~::.\.;1. Ruth Hrc ~ges Fraser, \-lfAC S,ry r:: lerk ',"p.d.;on f"ov. 1, 2009 ~10.:'1",~(JI)8 .. II . ,>:?if.'~;~ ':~f4-~;'~)} ');~~~}' '-...~" PUBLIC HEARING SALE OF EXCESS CITY PROPERTY '" T'1I~ Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the disposition dnd ';,Jle of excess City property, TlJesejay, ,'overnber 10, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., in the ':c'mcil Chamber of the City Hall Guil'.:ing RlJilding H) at >he Virginia 8(';'ch ;v.unicir;dl '>:nier, Virginia 8each, V!'glnia. The :r,}p"Jlties are located Llt 1544 ',,~'N Ycrk ,',i'nl1e ,GPIN 2407-94-7780), 1540 Nf'w ,;rk ,;ven'ie I,GPIN 2407-94-B(55), '::c',:2 :"jtcwocd Avenue (GPIN :2407-02-5418), 1 ;;:;,2'1 ':ilio Avenue 'GPIN 2417-C6-IJl82), I~d lC<j Bob Lane \GPIN 240'7-74-05:52). T:./:' 'JiJrpese of this Hearing "ill !)e to ci:tain ;lnlic input to determine whetl~er these 0r'Jperties should be ceolar0d "bcess 'Jf 111:' C'ty'S 11ecds.. it : ,jU dJ physically ,lisabled 'Jr visually ',"paired ,md ,Ieed ,'ssistdl'r:e dt this yeeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S ;)FRCE at 385-4303; Hearing impaired, ;,JII' 1.800.828-1120 (Virginia Reiay -T c!eprore DeVice for the DeiJf). ',ny qupstions concerning this P !atter -'houid ::e ,jlrected to tl.e Gffice of Real Est:lte, ]["I,jing #2, Room 392, at the 1;,''I;:;inia ':\::<.oh :iluricipal Conter. T'le Real Estate ~t'ce tc;lephone 'lumber IS (i'5'7p354161. 'de'" :~o)rjges Fr",3€r, f',IMC '; ;y C'tc;l< ~-~, :.->con I'llov. 1, ""2~:{9 ~Ij ~~ Ll:_,?" 1.5 .........~ .......... ,..:/i\b~'\~';::;;" :: C;, .... :-~. ~.;~ ,~. .l ";,. ./..... ~\-.r:;; r.lJ '. , ~'... """'~. ~../j' ~..."...,.........,'~- -,.........,....... i)JJJ~~iC R~ARtNG ACQUISITION BY .i\GREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION The Virginia Beach City Council 'Nill hold a PUBLIC HEARING on ~he proposed acquif>ition by ,)greement or condemniltion of property and easements necessary for the Ba~\er ROi'ld Extended Project (CIP #2-071), ~,; ;',;jay '~o\lemb(;r :::'0, 21)19, ;',t \3:00 p.,n. T 'he (cuncil Cllar;-:Jer of the City :<311 CUllding (Bui'ding #1) dt tt'e Virginia ~3ei:lc'" :v11lr.jl;'pal Senter, Virginia BedCh, ' firglr1a, TI,e Jlars for the project ,Jre cll1tit!f'd: "3AKER ~I-:,\D D.TENDED ' PW:\jC'H3-0121 . (!P-2-071)" 3rd }Ie ;1'1 +:\6 in "e "uhlle ,-'forks ')f:lJdrtrnent, Enl~inE'enrg QiVIS:O'l ';;Jiidii'g 1f2 at';le ,'J\unlciprll i~el'tpr, Th€ rup0se of this He;;ring will rw '() \jbj~din iubiic input (('gardlng .;uthorizil'g c<JI1demnation, if necessary, for thiS project. :' j()U ,W~ physically di"labled or visually impaired dnd .'feed ,)f,sist"ncA at "h,:> meetirg, ;J\eai;e .:all the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 157.385-4303. ;l.ny questions ,jcrcerning this Hearing should :Je lire<;'ed to the Office of P",al E&tate, 3uilding /12, 900m ";92, >it the V'rginia 8each MUlllcipat I::erter, (757) 385-4161. R'.th Hc<if!,es Fraser, fv'H.1C Gity Glerk S!';.l~.:nn ''\;;,JV. 1, 2009 :,;~'2(~,31.~ II _ '!i~:~~~. ,-..ct. :,~.,.-1~ - - \~~ 'l;.'l_"~- . . r :.t "~~~'. "'. "- ,., t . ;'~, ....'.... .' 'J' t'~>"" ..:'...;- .l.... "'. _ ,,,,.,'':1' ...~;:..:;:i..t4 ?J!ll1.IC 1te.~BIN~ C_ONDEMNAT!ON Tl,e VirGin';) 8each City Council ';viII K.~d 2 PUBLIC HEARING on +re ~ropOS"t' Qcquisiticn by ~lgreement or cor,demnatior of prcperty dnd easements for tile Indiar Ri',er Read/West Neck Road Inte'section !"iprovements (Interim Safety Improvement #1) Project, CIP 2-502, T~esday, No~ember 10, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the City Hall BUilding (Buildmg #1; Jt the Virginia Beach\1uniclpal Center, " iri~inia Bf'8Ch, Virginia. The project is I'j,;atcc at the inter<;ection of West ~~eck p, Be :jl:d Indar liver Rond. Tile purpose of tri<; -'e (r;~yill !Je to cbtdin public input "f~ 3f(jirg Jlli!iCr:~:I1l'( I,ordernndion, If '__'cc ,-, ,Jj f 'or aroj..ct;t. , y' u,re ,.lhy'~ically jislbled or visually lpdirpd 'nd ','ed l'3-;c;tar';e '!t t'ils 'Or:,'I!" h Le ,;<111 't-e CITY CLERK'S ,). F!GE t l85-4303. .'\ny c j< S',C'iS .:onceming this matter ;hould ':e ,lit '()s'j to the Office of Real Estate, F ,lidi"; #2, Room 392, :it ~he Virgiria iCI,p,;!l ~'1u "I.it'd C'3nter, i7>)7;:::S!J-4161. pun- Hodges Frc l:,er, MMC eit) ClerK \l!'~a(1)r "'~;)\i. 1, :~ !I/~ ~(J722138 II I. CONSENT AGENDA J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinances DECLARING City property to be EXCESS and AUTHORIZING the City Manager to exchange, for the Zurich Arch property owned by Habitat for Humanity, the property at: a, N elms Lane b. 1000 Red Mill Boulevard 2. Ordinances DECLARING City property to be EXCESS and AUTHORIZING the City Manager to sell the property at: a. 1544 New York Avenue to Mark W.e. McGohan b. 1540 New York Avenue, 232 Gatewood Avenue, 1525 Ohio Avenue and 109 and 111 Bob Lane to Ocean Bay Homes, Inc. 3. An Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple for the right-of-way for Baker Road Extended with temporary and permanent easements, by agreement or condemnation 4. An Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple for the rights-of-way for West Neck Road Interim Safety Improvement with temporary and permanent easements, by agreement or condemnation 5. Resolution to REFER to the Planning Commission an Ordinance AMENDING SIll, S215 and S216 and ADDING S218 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) re: defining electronic display billboards and establishing requirements for such billboards (requested by Councilman Diezel) 6. Resolution to SUPPLEMENT the 2010 Legislative Agenda to request the Governor and the Virginia General Assembly fully fund the Virginia National Defense Industrial Authority (VNDIA) and support legislation to provide additional monies to the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance (HRMFFA) to promote and protect defense spending and other federal activities in Hampton Roads (requested by Councilman Uhrin) 7. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $64,600 Grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the 2009 Infrastructure Protection Activities Program to the FY2009-10 Operating Budget of the Police Department re: dive equipment and training for the Police Marine Unit. 8. Ordir,ance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE from the United States Department of Justice Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant $214,208 re: Public Safety and Criminal Proc.~ssing as follows: a. $13,000 to the Police Department re: the purchase of night vision goggles b. $30,940 to the Police Department re: the purchase of surveillance equipment c. $43,000 to the Police Department re: security improvement to the 4th Precinct parking lot d. $93,875 to the Sheriffre: security camera upgrade e. $19,390 to Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court re: a contracted Expungement Clerk f. $2,148 to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court re: an on-line training subscription g. $11,855 to the Circuit Court re: Media Evidence Display System 9. Ordiniillce to ESTABLISH Capital Project #3-151, ACCEPT the Grant and APPROPRIATE $800,000 from the United States Department of Justice re: mobile communications services and equipment supporting regional communication needs for the COPS Law Enforcement Techlllology , , ~ 4\ L5'J\~ ~ ; U~ '~,,,. i' 0:> \ 0 --~ u \J rl i ~ "" ~./ I! ~ ~ U1 ~ \ cc I \f'-':7r-j \ " .. -,I :1-:::.... 7." ,~, .' ~ ~ ~~ ~ \ ~ ~ D'. ~-l l. il L- ~~~./... ,.~' '" ~ ~ ';Z...1 ~ \ % M, ~ I.....LJ ~'/ ',',' .. g.~fI) ~ ~ ~~J,: · "~ ~ r~;::""J I i~~~"-7' -~ ~ ", ~ ~ C;l ~ ~\ ~ 'Il, ~ \'~: '-1 ,/r~:=-""'__, / --;;... X7 'I""rJ., ~ 0 0 t ~ ~ \L.. 1. ..... _.~-~~-~,.,__~/,I "-"" """" " (/) ~ t'o . ~S-.---=---- _.;;;;:;;:::;:---.=-~~,> / '-~--."--, ,,~ ~ \ ~ /<~~_____:------- 1 \r\ ~-..~) I ") .=,.-:-----"'-'--,,,_, I /...? 0 \. r,'(frWimtr hnm\.L~'11 /~ .... / !~~,-,' ~ \~ ~\ \,\ \4l1"T ~cr ::~. f r - "Ill' 811Jf1fh . '''':-, --~,~ t: \ \~ ...- -\1 / ,/ :3 J I~';:j ~ "'?:J ""\ ~ - ; f / '" ----.J ~ \ \ _ -,~ \ ) \ ~ \ \ \ ---_/ . ./ ' " , \ \'-I..-W... ,,~ \lq OJ~UJ,.., \1\ ---1 .~<\,___~,~~.u;;;,iiiiitL,,---~:L........ 0 .I" '.\ ,,\ t'''" 1 _~-.;..' \~------- __.~ ''--:::~J 1 -\ \ L-.l\"- : i ~\ ~,t'" f r __----'------ __--,.,----- -- ~I \I 1 -\ \ !"'1- U " " , \ .._____---~ _--- ,__ \ -\ \ \ _I \ ..11 \ 1 \ t::J i, -___-!S- 1'" , \ \ Jr\ h \ '\ \ nO,' :' 'pt ',1 [ 1 \ U' l , \ \ I' ~ f / CJ d:' t / ~ ~ w/c~ [fj~~CJ u/~ro ~ CJ I /,' / s(\ v -- '--'---'-"-'-- - ~,. 0 1 ' V . , ., ". ., ,.:: '~"C..i. .'f':: . "'"isil:mt:, -.. ' i ~ r? ?: ';1/ r ,'. ~GJu 2] / l / 1'1 i O~O yj ! 1 ,0 -:=J nll, ij" /[fjJ-jj I 1 II / , ~. ~I I , {~i id/, iH~ /'. . [) 2:R'!" I I / UN' I(.K ~ " ~ ~il!-~ "l1i~' ~4f.$S ~~,---- ,y ~ ,.. ~------ i L ""'l ~ g- ~itiii 0: ,L r l ~ :/ 0- 'i1 / .-:.. \ ~I ~ .-Ji-- SELLER: PURCHASER: PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED TO HABITAT: PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED TO CITY: EASEMENT TO BE RESERVED: SUMMARY OF TERMS LAND EXCHANGE OF EXCESS PROPERTY AT NELMS LANE City of Virginia Beach ("City") South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. ("Habitat") Property at Nelms Lane (GPIN 1467-77-0386) (supports four (4) new townhouses) 1000 Red Mill Boulevard (supports two (2) new subdivided lots) (See location map) Zurich Arch Property (GPIN 1487-93-9540) (supports six (6) new townhouses) (See location map) City will reserve an easement for the 8" gravity sewer line that runs along the northern boundary line of the property V :\applications\citylawprodlcyco 1Il32'Wpdocs\DO 13\P004\00072313.DOC I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance declaring property located at Nelms Lane (GPIN 1467-77-0386) to be in excess of the City's needs and authorizing the City Manager to exchange same to Habitat for Humanity for property located at Zurich Arch. MEETING DATE: November 10,2009 . Background: In lieu of Habitat for Humanity ("Habitat") developing property that it owns at Zurich Arch (the "Zurich Arch Property"), the City of Virginia Beach ("City") has proposed a land exchange. Specifically, the City proposes to exchange two City-owned properties for the Zurich Arch Property (which would support six (6) new townhouses). One of the properties is located on Nelms Lane (GPIN 1467-77-0386). It is an unimproved lot and will support four (4) new townhouses. The other property is located on Red Mill Boulevard and will support two (2) new subdivided lots. The Red Mill Boulevard property is also being presented to City Council for action on November 10, 2009. . Considerations: The Nelms Lane property was originally acquired for the Richard Road Extension Project which was never constructed. It is not needed for public purposes. The property has been maintained by the City and is in excess of the City's needs. The Zurich Arch Property is wooded and requires little to no maintenance. Staff recommends that Council declare the property to be in excess of the City's needs and approve the exchange of properties. · Public Information: Advertisement for public hearing and advertisement of City Council agenda. · Alternatives: Approve the request as presented, deny the request, or add conditions as desired by Council. . Recommendations: Approve the request as presented. · Attachments: Ordinance, Summary of Terms, and Location Map. Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works I Real state Housing and Neighborho ~t .~~ e /JP:#- pre~~, 'rJ:,..,'.. iO~, \fj; ~/ II.. ~- 'X v. AN ORDINANCE DECLARING PROPERTY LOCATED AT NELMS LANE (GPIN: 1467-77- 0386) TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE CITY'S NEEDS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXCHANGE SAME TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT ZURICH ARCH WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") is the owner of that certain parcel of land located on Nelms Lane (GPIN: 1467-77-0386) (the "Nelms Lane Property"); WHEREAS, the Nelms Lane Property was originally acquired for the Richard Road Extension Project and is not needed for public purposes; WHEREAS, a supermajority vote is needed for the disposition of the Nelms Lane Property; WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity ("Habitat") is the owner of that certain parcel of land located at Zurich Arch (the "Zurich Arch Property"), which is approved for the development of six new townhouses; WHEREAS, a land exchange has been proposed whereby the City would convey to Habitat the Nelms Lane Property as well as another property located on Red Mill Boulevard, and Habitat would convey the Zurich Arch Property to the City; WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the Nelms Lane Property is in excess of the needs of the City; NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Nelms Lane Property is hereby declared to be in excess of the needs of the City and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary to convey such property to Habitat and to accept the Zurich Arch Property from Habitat in substantial conformity with the Summary of Terms attached hereto and such other terms and conditions deemed necessary and sufficient by the City Manager and in a form deHmed satisfactory by the City Attorney. This ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption. of Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the _, 2009. day THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTED TO COUNCIL. I APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM: ~ C. ~S4'\. ? ~~ CA11211 \\vbgov ,com ,dfs 1 "'PJllications ,citylawprod'cycom32\ WpdocsID029\POO(j\0003035 3 ,DOC R-1 November 10, 2009 [J ~ ---: ~ " '2i :> <'"I -- .... r ~ '(9, \- 16" .,,;. - - ~ ..... - 1; U1'- <r o..~ \ 0" s 0:. ~ ~ l 0.. 0.. 0:. y 4. 0 ~ cOO ~ - ~U10 ~ g-.,~~ c C"" ~ '" ~'O r:. i :;--00'" ~ 'a ~ ~ ~U~""i ~ (J) O-<D ~ /1.-. .-l U ~ "e: /-- 7 (1)"$ ~ ;' r-----...J (I) --=t '--1 U1('l 0% ~~ ( ~ C::J D IfJ L~ r--~ l7 ,r: -"LJ---.J u I '--,,~---..J ~70 ..... \ ..0 ~ j~ " ,- ('Oil I ! / / , f / ~~~ C::-.""",- __~,,_"" ~-.........;:::~'------~-_._-_._,,---_...- /,J!__~::::::-;:=::..._.~=~,,~__. / , ( { ! ? r~ L-J .//-......"'-.....-------. f~.", , " --..-~---- /t-----_____ ( 1 I~---- ~ Q <:) ~ I ~ ~ '?,. ~ "'5 ~ f/J 0> c II.! ~ II.!" $: 0.. fl "i ~ , \ ( ~~ I ~f -----, :/ ~-- . -"'-''''-, :t ......,,-~------..J SELLER: PURCHASER: PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED 110 HABITAT: PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED TO CITY: SUMMARY OF TERMS LAND EXCHANGE OF EXCESS PROPERTY AT 1000 RED MILL BOULEVARD City of Virginia Beach ("City") South Hampton Roads Habitat for Humanity, Inc. ("Habitat") 1000 Red Mill Boulevard (supports two (2) new subdivided lots) Property at Nelms Lane (GPIN 1467-77-0386) (supports four (4) new townhouses) (See location map) Zurich Arch Property (GPIN 1487-93-9540) (supports six (6) new townhouses) (See location map) II I" CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance declaring property located at 1000 Red Mill Boulevard to be in excess of the City's needs and authorizing the City Manager to exchange same to Habitat for Humanity for property located at Zurich Arch. MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: In lieu of Habitat for Humanity ("Habitat") developing property that it owns at Zurich Arch (the "Zurich Arch Property"), the City of Virginia Beach ("City") has proposed a land exchange. Specifically, the City proposes to exchange two City-owned properties for the Zurich Arch Property (which would support six (6) new townhouses). One of the properties is located at 1000 Red Mill Boulevard (GPIN 2414-36- 7307). It is an unimproved lot and will support two (2) new subdivided lots. The other property is located on Nelms Lane and will support four (4) new townhouses. The Nelms Lane property is also being presented to City Council for action on November 10, 2009. . Considerations: The Red Mill Boulevard property was originally acquired for the Red Mill Farm Project but not for right-of-way purposes. It is not needed for public purposes. The property has been maintained by the City and is in excess of the City's needs. The Zurich Arch Property is wooded and requires little to no maintenance. Staff recommends that Council declare the property to be in excess of the City's needs and approve the exchange of properties. · Public Information: Advertisement for public hearing and advertisement of City Council agenda. · Alternatives: Approve the request as presented, deny the request, or add conditions as desired by Council. . Recommendations: Approved the request as presented. · Attachments: Ordinance, Summary of Terms, and Location Map. Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works I al ES~~~~.., . f. /I,. "I? , f1.t-- City Manager~ k ,~:ing and Ne'ghbor/ priJr~j?' - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 RED MILL BOULEVARD TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE CITY'S NEEDS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXCHANGE SAME TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT ZURICH ARCH WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") is the owner of that certain parcel of land located 1000 Red Mill Boulevard (GPIN: 2414-36-7307) (the "Red Mill Property"); WHEREAS, the Red Mill Property was originally acquired for the Red Mill Farm Project and is not needed for public purposes; WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity ("Habitat") is the owner of that certain parcel of land located at Zurich Arch (the "Zurich Arch Property"), which is approved for the development of six new townhouses; WHEREAS, a land exchange has been proposed whereby the City would convey to Habitat the Red Mill Property as well as another property located on Nelms Lane, and Habitat would convey the Zurich Arch Property to the City; WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the Red Mill Property is in excess of the needs of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Red Mill Property is hereby declared to be in excess of the needs of the City and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary to convey such property to Habitat and to accept the Zurich Arch Property from Habitat in Bubstantial conformity with the Summary of Terms attached hereto and such other termB and conditions deemed necessary and sufficient by the City Manager and in a form deemed satisfactory by the City Attorney. This ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day of I .""-_~_41.~ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM: ~(4- c. ~Slit-.. {? CA11190 "vbgov ,com\dfs I \applications\citylawprod\cycom32\ Wpdocs\D029\P006\00030380,DOC R-1 November 10,2009 ~~~ , wo:u L" L--.-J ~ U ~ Q)D 0,,'.\,1' :.. "'. Ip .' . il ... ~~; -.-., > "L. . ~D'" r;::;r~), " . --9~i, I~'" ", ',,) y 0 lur 1 I,. ',.. C;Vd:it (;] P V .,' ~... ..' ":'." '1+ ,/ - . 'If ." J, j , .' "", u ",i o .' ".,. ." ,.;j .. 0 '. ...., . ..;,... , J" nili,U "" D . D,o"J [J/ '., J' ,,"~', ii~ ~(;~~rdO' ,," / /,0"<0 0 "'Rt,~ 0.91 , ' ", ./ " ,- .. -, 0 Clr'-J 'r"'t '", ' [,:~, ,"", ' ~ W ,Lj' . '1Jt, .... f- 0 .,.... !]' ~Irt~~~. '~!;;:! h ~ f0 0 lIJqr,' -, 'f - _Wo _ --l , '~, , ''''',. c.. "," ' ' " 'C .... 0 0 'ii, 7&",-, "" , , 0 0:: W -n -,... U ; $,,;G ,JJ iil. '{J~D:i;i ~ c.. In ,,-J"'I,.', "" ' '," , ,'" . . .,.., '," ..... .. D,. " ',,,,,. I".,;. ,;:[::r,~'~"<'." D i; . ",u '" n. · h' 'IU":;" : ':":LJ~,, 0, .' A' '1'" I ' .... ,'" ;' ,"'.. ..... , . ~ ,,' . '. 11 11": J 0 0 .,' D '. }~ > "r:::1-'O;, .Q"':"'o'''' D" '.' U' . ft,~ ..... /'I'(iI,. ~D 'p:~O!':: l' ,,,"' , ' " ," ~ 1 r .' '0;, t: : lQ ,,"',' , ~'''' ""~13.,: ",,, ~;iii~y~ ,"" " "', , , ,," '..... ";>l;.;(--::-j/ CZ, ,,;, i ' , ;8: ':',,- ,"" 0 J: ~ '0' ,:........~l ,; , ~ ,,'" ",~,O'O'" ,,',: "N 0 '" , ,:, '\...".,..J: ':::, , 0 ] "', .,.i,' ." '. '-11.' ~ Cl '"'.' , '. ,/ y ,'" "... . 1~ '\':"'I:2;;;L , :u c.:: I. . . t:::J, , .... ' ~1,UO:~'~Gl,-.~".,::,l'~:D"'~'.'~~~"-" l' ._....; ."'" O hi ". ..... .... ..... .I' ~ <I: r '. ... '''" ..,> " PI,; . ." :,.,' ....>, . i"l:;; " t..; ""'~" . . . , ". " ,', " , J:, ----\:...~... ... ~ 1,. ;~';;:t. .:; ~ ,'- '. ,,' ""'~~".'" :,' ''': "', > >~~/'~-':",' ::,,;.. I,: -- ~i - jl"---- -" " {';;):'I:'" ':,; ~ 0( - 0 '''" , ,,;: :j, w 6\."0 ~ ' ,', ' , 'l, i ...... .... '-, ....( '.' ;-: ~'~",,;.j '.~ . '\ r-,' In''', . I:::.. I ;f"'" · ,~ .J D. L/./ a .. 'n . 01 , r"'" I~ E ~ ~ 0:= 0 ..!- c..Wco ~ 0........ 0 (:) ~o~ ~ ~ .:::: 0:= "It ~ II zc..~ ~ ~ Q~~ ~ WI-_"It ~ ;i <(ON ~ t) O(/)Z ~ en 0 "^ _ I'll ...J W 0.. :; 0(,1) -g >< ~ W ~ ~ u:: u a::: ::> 13 : .~ 9; x - . ~ ., " ~.,,, .', " ')1, '" ", ~~ ','.' .' ,.'.: ~ -, ,,' ~ ,..' g j:::: ..- co ::l I'll Q) :; CD III Q) o '2: Q) C/) 1:: o '0 ~ Q) E: ~ 0- o 1ii g- O a. C/) Q) e~ ci> .0 a.... Jj .8 c 8. ci, >.co e c:: t::.r::.a. w Q) 0 :; a. (!) ':>. N > "C 0 u ~- a. a.: C O:~O co >- jm~ ' j a. , ,,:'; II ~.I ., I --'~"''''''~~__~~"",~I'' ':'I '''''2~ '--~\1 \'i') . ' l~: ~\:"" . ill ~..:,,~, 4" f/ ....~:.:..~.... CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance declaring the property located at 1544 New York Avenue to be in excess of the City's needs and authorizing the City Manager to sell the property to Mark W.C. McGahan. MEETING DATE: November 10,2009 . Background: The City of acquired the property at 1544 New York Avenue (GPIN 2407-94- 7780) from David E. Daskam in December 2007 as part of the APZ-1 Acquisition Program. At the time of acquisition, the property was developed with a single family home which was subsequently demolished due to its poor condition. Mark W.C. McGahan ("McGahan") owns the adjacent property at 1548 New York Avenue, which is developed with his residence. McGahan proposes to purchase the vacant lot located at 1544 New York Avenue and resubdivide the two properties into one residential lot. . Considerations: The APZ-1 Disposition Committee has evaluated the property and determined that it would be preferable to leave the lot undeveloped in order to reduce residential density, and due to the current congestion on the street, and the narrow width of the street. The Disposition Committee recommended that the site be sold to an adjoining property owner. The City contacted McGahan to determine if he had any interest in purchasing the property with restrictions barring new residential units. Mr. McGahan is interested in purchasing the property for $7,000. If the City retains the property, the City must pay to maintain the lot at an estimated annual cost of $630. . Public Information: Advertisement for public hearing as required by Section 15.2-1800 Code of Virginia and advertisement of City Council Agenda. . Alternatives: Sell the 8,711 square foot lot to McGahan with use restrictions, or keep the property in City inventory. . Recommendations: Approve the request and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to convey the property subject to the terms and conditions in the attached! Summary of Terms and such other terms, conditions or modifications as may be l>atisfactory to the City Council. . Revenul~ restriction: The City funded the acquisition of the property through the partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia, with each party contributing fifty perc:ent (50%) of the funds. Per the partnership agreement, fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds from the sale will be refunded to the Commonwealth. The remaining fifty percent (50%) shall be appropriated to Various Site Acquisition (CIP 3-3158). . Attachments: Ordinanc:e, Location Map, Summary of Terms Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance ~ Submitting Del~rtmentlAgency: Public Works/Real t:sta/~ City Manager!'~ ~ k . ~L9I?1 Eq::: V:\Applications\CityLa'wProd\cycom32\ Wpdocs\D029\POO3\00047922.DOC II I, II -"-___...____._I!.,., 1 2 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE PROPERTY 3 LOCATED AT 1544 NEW YORK AVENUE TO BE 4 IN EXCESS OF THE CITY'S NEEDS AND 5 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SELL 6 THE PROPERTY TO MARK W.C. McGOHAN. 7 8 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") is the owner of that 9 certain parcel of land located at 1544 New York Avenue (GPIN 2407-94-7780) (the 10 "Property"), more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto; 11 12 WHEREAS, the City acquired the Property pursuant to the APZ-1 13 Acquisition Program; 14 15 WHEREAS, the City funded the acquisition of the Property through a 16 partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth"), with each party 17 contributing fifty percent (50%) of the funds; 18 19 WHEREAS, the Property was improved with a single family residence 20 when the APZ-1 Ordinance was adopted on December 20,2005; 21 22 WHEREAS, the residence was demolished on October 8, 2007 and the 23 APZ-1 Disposition Committee has determined that the Property should no longer be 24 developed with a dwelling unit in order to decrease residential density; 25 26 WHEREAS, Mark W.C. McGohan ("McGohan") owns the adjacent 2 7 property and he has requested to purchase the Property in order to utilize it in a manner 28 compatible with the APZ-1 Ordinance; 29 30 WHEREAS, the sale to McGohan accomplishes a reduction in residential 31 density while still preserving the integrity of the neighborhood; 32 33 WHEREAS, McGohan desires to purchase the Property in accordance 34 with the Summary of Terms attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; 35 3 6 WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the property is in excess 3 7 of the needs of the City of Virginia Beach. 38 39 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 40 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 41 42 That the Property is hereby declared to be in excess of the needs of the 43 City of Virginia Beach and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any 44 documents necessary to convey the Property to Mark W.C. McGohan, in accordance 45 with the Summary of Terms attached hereto and such other terms, conditions or 46 modifications deemed necessary and sufficient by the City Manager and in a form 47 deemed satisfactory by the City Attorney. 48 49 Further, that the revenue from the sale of the Property in the amount of 50 $7,000 shall be received and appropriated as follows: 51 1. $3,500 shall be appropriated to CIP #9-060, Oceana and Interfacility 52 Traffic Area Conformity and Acquisition, for the purpose of the City Manager refunding 53 the Commonwealth's portion in accordance with the partnership agreement; 54 2. $3,500 shall be appropriated to CIP #3-368, Various Site Acquisitions. 55 56 This ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption. 57 58 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 59 day of _ ,2009. 60 CA11196 R-1 1 0/28/2009 \\vbgov .com\dfs 1 \appllcations\citylawprod\cycom32\wpdocs\d019\p005\0002247 4.doc APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO CONTENT L", lC4 ~"\:J ~ oL.J CUtAJ j, u . Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIEN CY iw:\' City/Attorney's ~ II II EXHIBIT A GPIN 2407-94-7780 (1544 New York Avenue): ALL THAT certain lot and part of lot, with improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and designated and described on a survey of Block Number Six (6) of Oceana Gardens made by W.B. Gallup, County Surveyor, March 20, 1947 and duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 21, at page 3, as the whole of Lot Twenty (20) and the Western Twenty (20) feet of Lot Twenty-one (21); said lot and part of lot taken as a whole face seventy (70) feet on the North side of New York Avenue and extend back between parallel lines one hundred twenty-five (125) feet, reference to the aforesaid plat is hereby made for a more particular description of said property. LESS AND EXCEPT all right, title and interest of the Grantor in and to any public road, public rights-of-way, or public easements adjacent to the above-referenced property. IT BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, by Deed from David E. Daskam, dated December 19,2007 and recorded as Instrument No. 20071219001669970. EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF TERMS SALE OF EXCESS PROPERTY AT 1544 NEW YORK AVENUE SELLER: City of Virginia Beach PURCHASER: Mark W.C. McGohan PROPERTY: 8,711 square feet of property generally known as 1544 New York Avenue [GPIN: 2407-94-7780] LEGAL DESCRIF'TION: ALL THAT certain lot and part oflot, with improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and designated and described on a survey of Block Number Six (6) of Ocean a Gardens made by W.B. Gallup, County Surveyor, March 20, 1947 and duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 21, at page 3, as the whole of Lot Twenty (20) and the Western Twenty (20) feet of Lot Twenty-one (21); said lot and part of lot taken as a whole face seventy (70) feet on the North side of New York Avenue and extend back between parallel lines one hundred twenty-five (12S) feet, reference to the aforesaid plat is hereby made for a more particular description of said property. LESS AND EXCEPT all right, title and interest of the Grantor in and to any public road, public rights-of-way, or public easements adjacent to the above-referenced property. IT BEING a portion ofthe same property conveyed to the City of Virginia Bea,::h, by Deed from David E. Daskam, dated December 19, 2007 and recorded as Instrument No. 20071219001669970. SALE PRICE: $7,000 CONDITIONS OF SALE · Property is purchased "As Is, Where Is." · Buyer has been advised of APZ-l restrictions for use. · Buyer may use the Property for accessory structures, or Buyer may otherwise utilize the property for construction in conjunction with his adjacent property upon Resubdivision to remove interior lot Imes; however, Buyer may not add any new dwelling units. · Buy,er shall resubdivide the Property at his expense should Buyer desire to construct across the property line between the Property and Buyer's adjacent property. · Selkr will record deed restrictions permanently preventing new dwelling units prior to or simultaneous with conveyance. v :\Applications\CityLawProd\cycom32\ Wpdocs\D029\P003\0004 7926,DOC '" z+~ ~ lD I ~ ~ ~! ~ . 3 J 3 " W ~ k ll. w'" <l: z'" "" ..:'" "'" ...J~ Z :!l,,;- o 00::; ~ !;i g: ~ o ;;;:i:: g 12~ '] "J j 'j fJ f ~ I< ';- Q: -g * 5 jD ~ w ~ol' ll. :J OJ\'~ 'fflV;jOO N Z'" <l: w., :E >- ..:q Z Qq L-j 0 J:.... ~ !;i 0;;: "'''' 0 ~~ 0 -0. a::CJ ..J 0 LL HHIN.l.l3_ ,'j [1 o ~ ~ ~ ~ 1:l ~ Q: c ~ u jD ~ ~ w ~ $ '" w :J :l z+~ :J ~ Z :1 ~ Z ~ol' ,; ll. w ~ ll. w., ~ ii:~ , ~- <l: ~ <l: if :E ",<0 ~ :E 0'" 8 a::"i' ~ ~~ . Z O~ Z i 0 >,.:.. I 0 ~ ~~ . ~ ~~ ~ w'" ! Zz ~ 0 ~~ ~ 0 ",Il. 'l g 'l 0 ::lCJ ~ ! ..J a:: a:: ~ 12 ~ 12 " ~ r..1 . e ~ u Or ~ 1 ~ II ,,~~Bt....:,\ r:~1-(~\'" ~.~C'I.I.'" ~'~""'....f" ~i,,~"'..~J t..:C..:r ~"\;~" }s€ ~" ~~~ '<:i~~.~.~._~.;}{! CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance declaring the properties located at 1540 New York Avenue; 232 Gatewood Avenue; 1525 Ohio Avenue and 109/111 Bob Lane to be in excess of the City's needs and authorizing the City Manager to sell the properties to Ocean Bay Homes, Inc. MEETING DATE: November 10,2009 . Background: The City acquired 1540 New York Avenue (GPIN 2407-94-8655); 232 Gatewood Avenue (GPIN 2407-02-5418); 1525 Ohio Avenue (GPIN 2417-05-0182); and 109/111 Bob Lane (GPIN 2407-74-0552) as part of the APZ-1/Clear Zone Use and Acquisition Plan. At the time of acquisition, the four parcels were developed with either single-family homes or duplexes. The APZ-1 Disposition Committee has evaluated the properties and determined that it would be preferable to keep these properties improved with residential use, as they are in the interior of stable residential neighborhoods (Oceana Gardens, West Oceana Gardens and Gatewood Park). The buyer shall evaluate each property and determine whether to remodel and renovate, or demolish and rebuild. Any renovation shall require noise attenuation and compliance with City codes. If the buyer elects to demolish and reconstruct, specific design criteria and enhanced noise attenuation are required. In either event, only one single-family dwelling unit shall be permitted in perpetuity on each site notwithstanding zoning for duplex use. A Request for Proposal (the "RFP") including these (4) building sites was advertised for two consecutive Sundays in The Virginian-Pilot as well as on the City of Virginia Beach website. Ocean Bay Homes, Inc. was selected to purchase the sites. . Considerations: The proposed sale of these sites to Ocean Bay Homes, Inc. was approved by the Oceana Land Use Conformity Committee. Ocean Bay Homes, Inc. is interested in purchasing all four properties for $246,000. If the City retains these properties, the City must pay to maintain the lots, an estimated annual cost of $630 per lot. . Public Ilnformation: Advertisl3ment of City Council Agenda . Recommendations: Approve the request and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to convey the properties subject to the terms and conditions in the attached Summary of Terms. . Revenw:! restriction: The City funded the acquisition of the properties through a partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia, with each party contributing fifty percent (50%) of the funds. Fifty percent of the proceeds from the sale will be deposited into the Oceana and ITA Conformity and Acquisition Project (CIP 9- 060) to be refunded to the Commonwealth. The remaining fifty percent (50%) shall be appropriated to Various Site Acquisition (CIP 3-368) . Attachments: OrdinanGe, Location Map, Summary of Terms Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance 74" Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real E City Manager~~S "k .~ II 1 2 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE 3 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1540 NEW YORK 4 AVENUE; 232 GATEWOOD AVENUE; 1525 5 OHIO AVENUE; AND 109/111 BOB LANE TO BE 6 IN EXCESS OF THE CITY'S NEEDS AND 7 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SELL 8 THE PROPERTIES TO OCEAN BAY HOMES, 9 INC. 10 11 WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach (the "City") is the owner of those 12 certain parcels of land located at (1) 1540 New York Avenue (GPIN 2407-94-8655); (2) 13 232 Gatewood Avenue (GPIN 2407-02-5418); (3) 1525 Ohio Avenue (GPIN 2417-05- 14 0182); and (4) 109/111 Bob Lane (GPIN 2407-74-0552) (the "Property", individually, or 15 the "Properties", collectively), more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto 16 and made a part hereof; 17 18 WHEREAS, the City acquired the Properties pursuant to the APZ-1 19 Acquisition Program; 20 21 WHEREAS, the City funded the acquisition of the Properties through a 22 partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth"), with each party 23 contributing fifty percent (50%) of the funds; 24 25 WHEREAS, the Properties are in the midst of other residences and at the 26 time of acquisition were improved with residential dwellings; 27 28 WHEREAS, City Council has elected to allow the rehabilitation or the 29 reconstruction of a single-family home of each of the four Properties in order to maintain 30 the integrity of the neighborhood; and 31 32 WHEREAS, in the event that a single-family home is reconstructed instead 33 of rehabilitated, said reconstruction is a grandfathered nonconforming use allowed 34 under current zoning law; 35 36 WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal ("RFP") was advertised for the 3 7 potential sale of the Properties; 38 3 9 WHEREAS, Ocean Bay Homes, Inc. ("Ocean Bay") was one of the 4 0 respondents to the RFP; 41 42 WHEREAS, the APZ-1 Disposition Committee has recommended that City 43 Council declare the Properties to be in excess of the City's needs and sell the 4 4 Properties to Ocean Bay; 45 46 WHEREAS, Ocean Bay will either renovate the existing single-family 47 home on each Property to prescribed standards acceptable to the City, including noise 48 attenuation and code compliance, or Ocean Bay will build a new single-family home on 49 each Property to prescribed standards acceptable to the City, including elevated noise 50 attenuation and design criteria, and Ocean Bay will thereafter convey the improved 51 Property to an owner-occupant; 52 53 VVHEREAS, Ocean Bay will purchase the Properties in accordance with 54 the Summary of Terms attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof; 55 5 6 WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the property is in excess 5 7 of the needs of the City of Virginia Beach. 58 59 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 60 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 61 62 That the Properties located at (1) 1540 New York Avenue (GPIN 2407-94- 63 8655); (2) 232 Gatewood Avenue (GPIN 2407-02-5418); (3) 1525 Ohio Avenue (GPIN 64 2417-05-0182); and (4) 109 Bob Lane (GPIN 2407-74-0552) are hereby declared to be 65 in excess of thl3 needs of the City of Virginia Beach and that the City Manager is hereby 66 authorized to execute any documents necessary to convey the Properties to Ocean Bay 67 Homes, Inc., in substantial conformity with the Summary of Terms attached hereto as 68 Exhibit "B" and such other terms, conditions or modifications as are deemed necessary 6 9 and sufficient by the City Manager and in a form deemed satisfactory by the City 7 0 Attorney. 71 72 Further, that the revenue from the sale of the Property in the amount of 7 3 $246,000 shall be received and appropriated as follows: 7 4 1. $'123,000 shall be appropriated to CIP #9-060, Oceana and Interfacility 75 Traffic Area Conformity and Acquisition, for the purpose of the City Manager refunding 76 the CommonwHalth's portion in accordance with the partnership agreement; 77 2. $'123,000 shall be appropriated to CIP #3-368, Various Site Acquisitions. 78 79 TI,is ordinance shall be effective from the date of its adoption. 80 81 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 82 day of ,2009. R-1 1 0/28/2009 CA-11030 \\vbgov.com\dfs 1 \applications\citylawprod\cycom32\wpdocs\d004 \p005\00020895.doc APPROVED AS TO CONTENT A,gPRpVED AS TO CONTf. <;... i')- ~ Q i .',~.J ~ .... Management Services APPROVED AS TO L GA SUFFICIENCY \02 Cit Attorney's Ice II EXHIBIT A 1) 1540 New York Avenue (GPIN 2407-94-8655) All those certain parts of lots, or parcels of land, situate in the Village of Oceana, Lynnhaven Magisterial District, County of Princess Anne, State of Virginia, being known and designated on a survey of Block No.6 of Oceana Gardens, made by W.B.Gallup, County Surveyor, March 20, 1947, and duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Princess Anne County, Virginia in Map Book 21, page 3. As the Eastern 30 feet oflot number twenty- one (21) and the Western thirty (30) feet of lot number twenty-two (22): the said parts of lots taken on a whole, face ("face" being erroneously referred to as "fact" in prior deeds) 60 feet on the North side of New York Avenue and extended back between parallel lines one hundred twenty-five feet (125) feet, reference is hereby made to the aforesaid plat for a more particular description of said property. LESS AND EXCEPT all right, title and interest of the Grantor in and to any public road, public rights-of-way, or public easements adjacent to the above-referenced property. IT BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, by deed of Wendy Davis (f/kIa Wendy McGuire), dated December 28, 2007, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 20080108000027160. 2) 232 Gatewood Avenue (GPIN 2407-02-5418) ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in Lynnhaven District in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (formerly Princess Anne County, Virginia), being known, numbered and designated as Lot 39, on the Revised Plat of Gatewood Park, which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 25, at page 87, to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of the property. LESS AND EXCEPT all right, title and interest of the Grantor in and to any public road, public rights-of-way, or public easements adjacent to the above-referenced property. IT BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, by deed of Antonio P. LaMotta and Nancy Sharp LaMotta, dated May 22,2008, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 20080528000622510. 3) 1525 Ohio Avenue (GPIN 2417-05-0182) Parcel One: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and known, numbered and designated as Lot C, as shown on the plat entitled "Property of Laura H. Boush, a part of Blocks Eighteen (18) and Nineteen (19) Oceana Gardens", which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 26, at page 45. Parcel Two: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia al1d known, numbered and designated as Lot D-3 on the plat entitled "Resubdivision of Lot D and Property of H. Allen Gibbs," dated November 29, 1985, made by Talbot & Associates, Ltd., which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 2534, page 1041. LESS AND EXCEPT all right, title and interest of the Grantor in and to any public road, public rights-of-way, or public easements adjacent to the above-referenced parcels. IT BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, by deed of Ella Poplin Trustee of the Ella Poplin Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated October 31, 2006 and Ella Poplin, dated May 1, 2008, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 20080509000546110. 4) 109/111 Bob Lane (GPIN 2407-74-0552) A 11 that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon numbered 109 and 111 Bob Lane, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly bounded and dl~scribed as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point on the western line of Bob Lane where it is intersected by the northern line of Lot 97 as shown on the Plat entitled, "Plat B of Additional Lots, West Oceana Gardens" of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 34, at page 49, and which point of beginning is marked by an iron pin distant 176.92 feet from the northern boundary line of Southern Boulevard; thence running South 87 degrees 39' west a distance of 120 feet to an iron pin, thence running North 2 degrees 21' west a distance of75 feet to an iron pin, thence running North 87 degrees 39' east a distance of 120 feet to an iron pin in the western line of Bob Lane; thence along said last mentioned line south 2 degrees 21' east a distance of 75 feet to the point of beginning. Being Lot 98 on the aforementioned Plat and a part of Lot 17 on the Plat entitled, "West II EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF TERMS SALE OF EXCESS PROPERTY SELLER: City of Virginia Beach PURCHASER: Ocean Bay Homes, mc, a Virginia corporation PROPERTY: 1) 1540 New York Ave (GPIN 2407-94-8655) 2) 232 Gatewood Avenue (GPIN 2407-02-5418) 3) 1525 Ohio Avenue (GPIN 2417-05-0182) 4) 109/111 Bob Lane (GPIN 2407-74-0552) More particularly described as: 1) 1540 New York Avenue (GPIN 2407-94-8655) All those certain parts of lots, or parcels of land, situate in the Village of Oceana, Lynnhaven Magisterial District, County of Princess Anne, State of Virginia, being known and designated on a survey of Block No.6 of Oceana Gardens, made by W.B.Gallup, County Surveyor, March 20, 1947, and duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Princess Anne County, Virginia in Map Book 21, page 3. As the Eastern 30 feet of lot number twenty-one (21) and the Western thirty (30) feet of lot number twenty-two (22): the said parts of lots taken on a whole, face ("face" being erroneously referred to as "fact" in prior deeds) 60 feet on the North side of New York Avenue and extended back between parallel lines one hundred twenty-five feet (125) feet, reference is hereby made to the aforesaid plat for a more particular description of said property. LESS AND EXCEPT all right, title and interest of the Grantor in and to any public road, public rights-of-way, or public easements adjacent to the above-referenced property. IT BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, by deed of Wendy Davis (f/k/a Wendy McGuire), dated December 28, 2007, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 20080108000027160. 1 2) 232 Gatewood Avenue (GPIN 2407-02-5418) ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in Lynnhaven District in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (formerly Princess Anne County, Virginia), being known, numbered and designated as Lot 39, on the Revised Plat of Gatewood Park, which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 25, at page 87, to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of the property. LESS AND EXCEPT all right, title and interest of the Grantor in and to any public road, public rights-of-way, or public easements adjacent to the above-referenced property. IT BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, by deed of Antonio P. LaMotta and Nancy Sharp LaMotta, dated May 22, 2008, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 20080528000622510. 3) 1525 Ohio Avenue (GPIN 2417-05-0182) Parcel One: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and known, numbered and designated as Lot C, as shown on the plat entitled "Property of Laura H. Boush, a part of Blocks Eighteen (18) and Nineteen (19) Oceana Gardens", which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 26, at page 45. Parcel Two: ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and known, numbered and designated as Lot D-3 on the plat entitled "Resubdivision of Lot D and Property of H. Allen Gibbs," dated November 29, 1985, made by Talbot & Associates, Ltd., which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Deed Book 2534, page 1041. 2 II LESS AND EXCEPT all right, title and interest of the Grantor in and to any public road, public rights-of-way, or public easements adjacent to the above-referenced parcels. IT BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, by deed of Ella Poplin Trustee of the Ella Poplin Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated October 31, 2006 and Ella Poplin, dated May 1, 2008, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 20080509000546110. 4) 109/111 Bob Lane (GPIN 2407-74-0552) All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon numbered 109 and 111 Bob Lane, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point on the western line of Bob Lane where it is intersected by the northern line of Lot 97 as shown on the Plat entitled, "Plat B of Additional Lots, West Oceana Gardens" of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 34, at page 49, and which point of beginning is marked by an iron pin distant 176.92 feet from the northern boundary line of Southern Boulevard; thence running South 87 degrees 39' west a distance of 120 feet to an iron pin, thence running North 2 degrees 21' west a distance of 75 feet to an iron pin, thence running North 87 degrees 39' east a distance of 120 feet to an iron pin in the western line of Bob Lane; thence along said last mentioned line south 2 degrees 21' east a distance of75 feet to the point of beginning. Being Lot 98 on the aforementioned Plat and a part of Lot 17 on the Plat entitled, "West Oceana Gardens" and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 25, at page 83. LESS AND EXCEPT all right, title and interest ofthe Grantor in and to any public road, public rights-of-way, or public easements adjacent to the above-referenced property. IT BEING a portion ofthe same property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, by deed of James E. Dickie, dated December 18, 2008, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 2009112000031720. SALE PRICE: $70,000 (1540 New York Avenue) $75,000 (232 Gatewood Avenue) 3 $75,000 (1525 Ohio Avenue) $26,000 (109 Bob Lane) $246,000 CONDITIONS OF SALE · The buyer shall evaluate each property and determine whether to remodel and renovate, or demolish and rebuild. Any renovation shall require noise attenuation and compliance with City codes. If the buyer elects to demolish and reconstruct, specific design criteria and enhanced noise attenuation are required. In either event, only one single-family dwelling unit shall be permitted in perpetuity. · Properties are purchased "As Is, Where Is." · Seller shall convey the properties subject to a deed restriction preventing Buyer, or ultimate owner-occupant, from participation in the APZ-l Acquisition Program. · Seller shall convey the properties with restriction limiting each site to the development of one single-family dwelling unit, in perpetuity. · One single-family dwelling shall be permitted on each site, in a style that substantially matches the style approved by the Planning Department. · Purchaser shall deposit Five Thousand and no/l 00 Dollars ($5,000.00) per property at the execution of the Purchase Agreement. · Buyer is required to meet City's enhanced noise attenuation standards; comply with all code regulations, and will meet design criteria for a rebuild, if applicable. 4 as -0 o \i5 W 65 o Q i'i Z _ Q ij) W ..... M ::<:. :E I-qll ~ >< N ~ ~ Z LL W :tt: Iii ~ 000 Q..J l\l E a::o~~ ..... a:: 0;f o W ~ q ~ u: - - U ..... ~ en 2i u (]) 'e- o... ;< II , CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An ordinance to authorize acquisition of property in fee simple for right-of-way for Baker Road Extended Project (CIP 2-071) and the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation. MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: The Baker Road Extended project (CIP #2-071) was programmed in the FY 2001/02 CIP. Total programmed costs are $3,225,000 through FY 2010/11. Total appropriations to date are $3,025,000. This project will provide for an alternate east-west connector between Newtown Road and Witchduck Road, and help to reduce traffic demand on Virginia Beach Boulevard and Wesleyan Drive. . Considerations: The design phase is complete and plats are being finalized to begin right-of-way acquisition. Right-of-way and easements are required from seven (7) parcels. There will be one (1) acquisition where the entire parcel is necessary for the project. Authority is requested to acquire the necessary property and easements (temporary and permanent) by agreement or condemnation. . Public Information: A Citizen Information Meeting was held on March 2, 2005. An advertisement of the public hearing was published in The VirQinian-Pilot. Beacon. Advertisement of the City Council Agenda. . Alternatives: Approve the ordinance as presented or deny the request for authority to acquire, by agreement or condemnation, the property and easements (temporary and permanent) associated with the Baker Road Extended project, CIP #2-071. . Recommendations: Approve the request for authority to acquire, by agreement or condemnation, the property and easements (temporary and permanent) associated with the Baker Road Extended project, CIP 2-071. . Attachments: Ordinance Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real City Manag : )~, L.. '.J\J ~ , 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 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN FEE SIMPLE FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR BAKER ROAD EXTENDED PROJECT (CIP 2-071) AND THE ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS, EITHER BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, a public necessity exists for the construction of this important roadway project to improve transportation within the City and for other related public purposes for the preservation of the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and for the welfare of the people in the City of Virginia Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: Section '1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition by purchase or condemnation pursuant to Sections 15.2-1901, et seq., Sections 33.1-89, et seq., and Title 25.1 of the Cod13 of Virginia of 1950, as amended, of all that certain real property in fee simple, includin~1 temporary and permanent easements and entire tracts upon which such rights of way or E~asements shall be located, within the limitations and conditions of Section 33.1-91 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Property"), as shown on the plans entitled "Baker Road Extended, PWNCN-8-0121, CIP 2-071," (the "Project") and more specifically described on the acquisition plats and plans for the Project (plats and plans collectively referred to as the "Plans"), the Plans being on file in the Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to make or cause to be made on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, to the extent that funds are available, a reasonable offer to the owners or persons having an interest in said Property. If refused, the City Attorney is hereby authorized to institute proceedings to condemn said Property. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day of PREPARED: 10/2/2009 CA-11204 R-1 \\vbgov .com\dfs 1 lapplicaJons\citylawprodlcycom32Iwpdocsld009Ip006\00024356.doc APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM 4O\/J CITY ATTORNEY l I am,)! C. ~~C\r'\ BLlC WORKS/REAL ESTATE II ~ ~ (,) I.P ...... ~ ~ ~ ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5~ e_-Q ~~ E ~ o I.P ...... 8 ~ - 8. rFl rFl o p... 1-o;'"C' , ," ~~ ~.g\lge g\l",",{.~ ~"il ~:-. Jl ~ ;... Jl ~..; e ~~~ :;.-g~ :;~~~B9 OOQ~?~QZ~Q\o" P t:.:..t::-:SrFl~~rFl~('-10~ _z.o rJl~ rFlrFll~.....a .;S ~'a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '-' ~ t ~...... ~ro ~ ~ro ~ ,;:4 3 <!a ro,;:4at-'~~t-'~~~~~ broo_rJlt::~~~_t-' . t-' 0 ,;S '8 0 ...... ~ 0 ro- CI ~ A ~ ~ (,) ~ ~ 0 '-e .;S ~ ;9. "~ p.. "~ p..~ t. ~ "........ ..... r- o , ('-1 e:: ~ ....... o ~ '0' \-l p... "d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \-l ~ ro ~ Ii1 U'O ~O p... ('-1 o o \0 \0 ..... ~d, f8~ \0 "<t' ..... "<t' r- ('-1 ~ , 0'. ~ , r- \0 "<t' ..... ~ <> ~~ ~ ~% 0..... >-' .~ ~~ ~"d p... t:: o 0 ~U p... 3 ~ ...:l t) ell ~ ~ if) ~ o o ..... ~ ~ ~ ..... CO ..... o ~ u 06 "d ~ ~ ~ "<t'VI 00 00 ('-1 o \0 ..... I 0'. r- , to "<t' ..... g ..... .~ a .g t:: o U ~ ~ ...:l ~ .g -B ....... ~ 4-< o rFl ~ t:: ~ o .~ t:: o "<t'''<t' ('-1 VI .......... 00 I I ('-1..... o"<t' \O"<t' ..... ..... I ' 0'.0'. r-~ I ' r-r- \0\0 "<t'''<t' ....."'" S ro (,) I.P 'B ~ u ~ ..... :S rJl rJl o p... ~ ~ ~ .~ c:: "" ~ t:: ~ 0 rJl ~ E (,). r':" 0 a ~a~~~ -e~~~~ ~ ....... a-~ ~d6~t-'5 t-' ~ ro 'd 'a ~ ~ ~ ..e 's '-e .~ a 0 roro p...1""\ p.....d I--' \0 o o VI VI ..... o I ..... "<t' "<t' ..... I 0'. ~ I r- \0 "<t' ..... ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;3U t::U 0....... .~ .~ ~~ t- o o ~ ~ u 'i ~ 'E ro ~ ~ rFl ~ .s....... ....... (,) o ~ t:: '0' oc.. ~ ~ A.s ~S ~.g .8"d ~ ~~ ---Q in' "'d ~ ~ ....,!:J 0::::: ~ ..... p ~ 8t- o go ~ ,g'8~ ell ~ a ~ p. ~ e ~ ~ ~ ,!:J".g t-'~~ .~.~ rFl ....... ~ ~'d,..q ~.............. S .8 .~ ~ro-Q ro ~ (,) ~,!:J~ ~ a p. ~t},~ o:::::,..q p... ..... ....... .;S ~ 5 .~_'O ~ OJJ 0 .~ .~..... g. >80 c:: ~ ro .8 p..8 .~ ....... rJl ag~ o ~ ~ O~t:: ~ ';;>-.~ .... ~..... ~,..qu ....... ~ .s~,..q o ....... ,!:J . 0.0 r- ~ ~ o~:S o ~ "'dc:::Q g ~ g .....~~ o~,..q o c:: ....... rJl ~ ~ '8sg \-l ~ 0 ro ~ ~ p...~,!:J t- t- O'. ('-1 I 0'. t- I t- \0 "<t' ..... u .g ~ a g .~ € ..s oS ~ ~ 0) bll ~ g Po< ~ ~ 1 t- o I M ~ U -d ~ 5 >< ~ ~ ~ 'Qj ~ ~ ~ Cd if) ~ g e; x % .a 's .g o U ~ ro ~ ~ ;g -B ....... ..... ~ 4-< o rJl ~ c:: 6 ....... 'a o ~ z ..... ~i ~~' z--t-~ ~< D 2J ru u D U D o o cQ cO "U X >- ~ I- ~ W $ LL 13 <( ! tn E os:: ~;U; ~ D.. D:: :!l <( WI-No 0:: :E I-Zog ~ ZWU')II Z Z -:ENI~ ~ o CW:u:~ ~ ~ <(>D..(5 11 <( 00-00 "~ o D::D::O ~ o x:: D.. "iji ...J 0;; ~ W :z I- CI) W ~ Q o th 11.1 ~ f!i >- .... 0::: 11.1 Q. o -cO::: c: Q. ~I "U CIl o 0:: """ &l Z "tl ~ a CIl :::a: CIl -g Q) ~ Q) iL: u ~ 13 "~ So x :::a: ....J """ m o o ~ "'" Q ~ ~ ::s CIl 2:! ::s m l/) B "~ Q) Ul 1:: a ::s Ul til c ~ Ol C ~ $: Q. :>- ,g II Iii 0- ~ Q. II r.'G\l4;'BE~~ fC...\~ 1II~':-",;z;~) !~ 9.) f= ' "t., (u ,.>J \i,\.;:,:;:;::--:::,;:.i! CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An ordinance to authorize acquisition of property in fee simple for rights-of-way for WEST NECK ROAD INTERIM SAFETY IMPROVEMENT #1 project (CIP 2-502) and the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation. MEETING DATE: . Background: The West Neck Road Safety Improvement project (the "Master Project") first appeared in the FY 2004 - 05 CIP. The Master Project will realign and widen West Neck Road between North Landing Road and Indian River Road. Construction of the Master Project is not projected to start until 2012. Due to increased safety concerns on West Neck Road, the City Manager authorized the use of the current project funding to be divided into three (3) interim safety improvements along the current West Neck Road alignment. This project, the West Neck Road Interim Safety Improvement #1 ("Interim Project #1 "), includes wider travel lanes, 4-foot paved shoulders, left turn lanes, and a new traffic signal at the intersection of West Neck Road and Indian River Road. . Considerations: Interim Project #1 is needed to improve the safety of the intersection of West Neck Road and Indian River Road. Narrow travel lanes, a lack of shoulders, roadway geometries, and clear zone obstructions all increase the risk of accidents at this intersection. The Department of Public Works is requesting that City Council grant the authority to acquire, by agreement or condemnation, all real property and temporary and/or permanent easements associated with Interim Project #1. Six (6) parcels are affected, and they are all partial acquisitions. Funding for the acquisitions needed for Interim Project #1 has been appropriated. Acquisition will be administered by the City of Virginia Beach, through the Public Works Office of Real Estate. . Public Information: Advertisement of Public Hearing on issue of condemnation published in The Virginian-Pilot, Beacon. Advertisement of City Council Agenda, including this item. Letters sent to the affected property owners where rights- of-way and/or easements are required for Interim Project #1, . Alternatives: Approve the ordinance as presented or deny the request. . Recommendations: Approve the ordinance as presented for the authorized acquisition of the property in fee simple for the rights-of-way and the acquisition of the temporary and/or permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation for the West Neck Road Interim Safety Improvement #1, CIP 2-502. . Attachments: Ordinance and Location Map Recommended Action: .4PIl/l1A.ll:U IfF t112/.J. Submitting Del"'rtmentlAgency: Public wor'i~ ~ 4r?t' City Manager:'~ k . ~~ II 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 ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN FEE SIMPLE FOR RIGHTS-OF- WAY FOR WEST NECK ROAD INTERIM SAFETY IMPROVEMENT #1, (CIP 2-502) AND THE ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS, EITHER BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, a public necessity exists for the construction of this important roadway project to improve transportation within the City and for other related public purposes for the preservation of the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and for the welfare of the people in the City of Virginia Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: Section 1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition by purchase or condemnation pursuant to Sections 15.2-1901, et seq., Sections 33.1-89, et seq., and Title 25.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, of all that certain real property in fee simple, including temporary and permanent easements (collectively, the "Property"), as shown on the plans entitled "INDIAN RIVER ROAD/WEST NECK ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS CIP #2-502 PWCN-8-0386," (the "Project") and more specifically described on the acquisition plats for the Project (plats and plans collectively referred to as the "Plans"), the Plans being on file in the Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to make or cause to be made on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, to the extent that funds are available, a reasonable offer to the owners or persons having an interest in said Property. If refused, the City Attorney is hereby authorized to institute proceedings to condemn said Property. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day of CA-11203 PREPARED: 10/29/2009 R-1 \ \vbgov .com\dfs 1 \applications\citylawprod\cycom32\wpdocs\d008\p009\00024299.doc APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM .tL~ CITY A TTORNE uJ...si,,-- II ~iA'~",:"\ ~~<f..". J.~~!='-+,:<l f~''''''l~'''~$l (fPf "~;~"~~) ..'Et ' i'f~ ~~l"""-- .~' t~} '~";'". //1 ... (,.f,.4.~~:: ..':;J lo.~":."';::::::...;.,j CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Referring to the Planning Commission an Ordinance to Amend Sections 111, 215 and 216 and Add a New Section 218 to the City Zoning Ordinance Defining Electronic Display Billboards and Establishing Requirements for Such Billboards MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: Current City Zoning Ordinance provisions prohibit the conversion of traditional "poster-style" billboards to digital billboards. At the request of Councilmember Diezel, the staff has drafted an ordinance that would allow such conversions with the approval of the City Council, subject to the limitations set forth in the ordinance and to the conditions of approval. . Considerations: The Resolution refers the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for its consideration and recommendation. It is expected that the item will be on the Commission's January agenda. . Public Information: Advertisement as a normal agenda item is required. If the resolution is adopted, the amendments would be the subject of advertised public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council . Attachments: Resolution; draft ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Requested by Councilmember Harry E. Diezel City Manager: 1 REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER HARRY E. DIEZEL 2 3 A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING 4 COMMISSION AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 5 111, 215 AND 216 AND ADD A NEW SECTION 218 TO 6 THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, DEFINING 7 ELECTRONIC DISPLAY BILLBOARDS AND 8 ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH 9 BILLBOARDS 10 WHEREAS, the public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so 11 require; 12 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 14 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 15 16 That there is hereby referred to the Planning Commission, for its consideration 17 and recommendation, proposed amendments to Sections 111, 215 and 216 and adding 18 a new Section 218 of the City Zoning Ordinance, defining electronic display billboards 19 and establishin~1 requirements for such billboards. 20 21 A copy of such proposed amendments is attached hereto. 22 23 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 24 day of November, 2009. APP7:J~:E~;;::J _ City Attorney's Office CA11318 R-1 November 2, 20D9 II REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER HARRY E. DIEZEL 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 111, 215 AND 2 216 AND ADD A NEW SECTION 218 TO THE CITY 3 ZONING ORDINANCE, DEFINING ELECTRONIC DISPLAY 4 BILLBOARDS AND ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR 5 SUCH BILLBOARDS 6 7 Sections Amended: City Zoning Ordinance Sections 111, 8 215 and 216 9 10 Section Added: City Zoning Ordinance Section 218 11 12 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning 13 practice so require; 14 15 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 16 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 17 18 That Sections 111, 215 and 216 of the City Zoning Ordinance are hereby 19 amended and reordained, and a new Section 218, pertaining to electronic display 20 billboards, is hereby added, to read as follows: 21 22 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 23 24 25 26 Sec. 111. Definitions. 27 28 For the purpose of this ordinance, words used in the present tense shall include 29 the future; words used in the singular number include the plural and the plural the 30 singular; the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders; the word "shall" is 31 mandatory; the word "may" is permissive; the word "land" includes only the area 32 described as being above mean sea level; and the word "person" includes an individual, 33 a partnership, association, or corporation. 34 35 In addition, the following terms shall be defined as herein indicated: 36 37 38 39 Billboards. A sign, as defined in this zoning code section, including the 40 supporting sigR structure, which advertises or directs the attention of the general public 41 to an establishment, business or service and which is located on a separate site from 42 the establishment, business or service 'Nhich the billboard advertises. 43 Billboard, electronic displav. A billboard. as defined in this section. containinq 44 liqht emittinq diodes (LEOs). fiber optics. Iiqht bulbs. plasma display screens or other 45 internal illumination devices that are used to chanqe the messaqes, intensity of liqht or 46 colors displayed by such siqn. The term shall not include billboards on which liqhts or 47 other illumination devices display only the temperature or time of day in alternatinq 48 cycles of not less than five (5) seconds, 49 50 COMMENT 51 52 The amendments in Lines 39-42 are intended to simplify the existing definition of billboard 53 and do not substa ntively change that definition. 54 55 The new language added in Lines 44-49 define the term "electronic display billboard." 56 57 58 59 ARTICLE 2. GI:NERAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE 60 TO ALL DISTRICTS 61 62 63 B. SIGN REGULATIONS 64 65 66 67 Sec. 215. Nonc:onforming signs. 68 69 (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 105(f) of this ordinance, and 70 except as provided in section 218. no nonconforming sign shall be structurally altered, 71 enlarged, moved or replaced, whether voluntarily or by reason of involuntary damage to 72 or destruction of such sign, unless such sign is brought into compliance with the 73 provisions of thi:s ordinance. Except as provided in section 216, no nonconforming sign 74 shall be repaired at a cost in excess of fifty (50) percent of its original cost unless such 75 sign is caused to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. Any nonconforming sign 76 which is not maintained continuously in good repair, and any nonconforming sign which 77 is abandoned shall be removed. For purposes of this section, a sign shall be deemed to 78 be abandoned if the business for which the sign was erected has not been in operation 79 for a period of at least two (2) years. Following the expiration of at least two (2) years, 80 any abandoned nonconforming sign shall be removed by the owner of the property on 81 which the sign is located, after notification by the zoning administrator. If, following such 82 two-year period, the zoning administrator has made a reasonable attempt to notify the 83 property owner, the city through its own agents or employees may enter the property 84 upon which the sign is located and remove any such sign wherever the owner has 85 refused to do so. The cost of such removal shall be chargeable to the owner of the 86 property. Nothing herein shall prevent the city from applying to a court of competent 2 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 II jurisdiction for an order requiring the removal of such abandoned nonconforming sign by the owner by means of injunction or other appropriate remedy. (b) [Not set out] ( c) [Not set out] COMMENT The amendment is necessary to conform the provisions of Section 215(a) to the new Section 218. Subsections (b) and (c) are not set out, as they do not pertain to the subject ofthis ordinance. Sec. 216. Outdoor advertising structures, billboards, signboards and poster panels Billboards. (a) Except as provided in section 218, no Ne new billboards shall be erected within the city limits, effective immediately. All existing billboards shall be governed by the provisions of section 215 of this ordinance. No billboard heretofore erected shall be located, in whole or in part, upon improved property. (b) Except as provided in section 218. no Ne billboard shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of an interchange, or intersection at grade, on any highway, interstate or city council designated expressway (measured along the highway, interstate or expressway to the nearest point of the beginning or ending of pavement widening at the exit from or entrance to the main traveled way). On all other streets, no billboard shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of any right-of-way of any underpass, overpass, bridge or tunnel or a plaza serving such facility. (c) Except as provided in section 218. no Ne billboard shall be closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line nor located closer than six hundred sixty (660) feet to the right-of-way line of any interstate or expressway designated by city council, nor closer than twenty-five (25) feet to the right-of-way of any other street. However, no billboard shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of any established residential or apartment zoning district. No billboard shall be located upon any lot having a frontage of less than two hundred (200) feet and an area of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (d) The repair of lawfully nonconforming billboards visible from the main traveled way of any interstate highway, federal-aid primary highway as that system existed on June 1, 1991, or national highway system highway shall be governed by the provisions of Virginia Code section 33.1-370.2. No building permit authorizing the repair of any such billboard shall be issued unless owner of the billboard provides to the building codes administrator a letter from the commonwealth transportation 3 132 commissioner approving the proposed repairs. In the event the building codes 133 administrator dl3termines that the cost of the proposed repairs exceeds fifty (50) percent 134 of the replacement cost of the billboard, he shall, within thirty (30) days of the filing of 135 the building permit application, submit an objection to the determination of the 136 commissioner, together with documentation supporting such objection. A copy of such 137 objection and documentation shall be provided to the billboard owner. The 138 determination of the commissioner upon reconsideration shall be binding. 139 140 COMMENT 141 142 The amendments in subsections (a), (b) and (c) are necessary to conform the provisions of 143 Section 216 to the new Section 218. The amendments to the catchline replace outdated terminology 144 and have no substantive effect. 145 146 147 Sec. 218. Electronic displav billboards. 148 149 Subiect to the followina provisions, electronic display billboards replacina existina 150 billboards on thH same lot may be allowed by resolution adopted by the City Council: 151 152 (a) Application requirements. Applications for approval of an electronic 153 display billboard shall be sianed by the applicant and property owner and filed with the 154 Plannina Director. No application shall be accepted by the Plannina Director unless all 155 required items are included. Applications shall include the followina items: 156 157 ill A site plan drawn to scale, showina the location of lot lines, utility 158 and other easements, abuttina roadways, existina structures, 159 includinQ any existina sians and billboards on the lot. the proposed 160 location of the electronic display billboard, and containinQ an inset 161 location map; 162 163 m A landscapinQ plan showina the type, size, number and location of 164 plant materials to be used; 165 166 ill Buildina plans showina the heiaht, dimensions, structural elements, 167 includina supportina elements, and electrical connections for the 168 proposed billboard; 169 170 ill A certification siQned by an enaineer licensed to practice in Virainia 171 that the proposed billboard meets all applicable requirements of the 172 Virainia Uniform Statewide Buildina Code; 173 174 @ A certification from the manufacturer of the proposed electronic 175 display billboard that the liaht intensity has been pre-set not to 176 exceed seven thousand (7,000) candelas per square meter and 4 II 177 that the proposed billboard is equipped with a workinq control 178 device capable of automatically reducino the illumination as 179 required by this section; 180 181 (6) A plan settinq forth the protocol for implementation of the 182 requirements set forth in subsection (e). Such protocol shall 183 address the circumstances under which the city or other authorized 184 aqency may display emerqency and other public safety messaqes, 185 the frequency and duration of such messaqes and such other 186 matters as the city council may deem appropriate; 187 188 (7) Any other information deemed necessary by the Planninq Director 189 in order to fully evaluate the application: and 190 191 (8) An application fee in the amount of four hundred dollars ($400.00). 192 193 (b) Dimensional and location requirements: 194 195 (1) No electronic display billboard shall be qreater in siqn area. as 196 defined in Section 111. than the siqn area of the billboard it 197 replaces; provided. however. that the city council may prescribe a 198 lesser sion area for any such billboard. 199 200 (2) No electronic display billboard shall exceed a heiqht equal to that of 201 the billboard it replaces or such lower heioht as the city council may 202 prescribe, and in no event shall any electronic display billboard 203 exceed twenty-four (24) feet in heioht. as measured from the qrade 204 of the public street toward which the billboard is oriented. 205 206 (3) The city council may prescribe that an electronic display billboard 207 be located on a different portion of the lot from that of the billboard 208 it replaces; provided. however. that no portion of such billboard 209 shall be located closer to any public street than any portion of the 210 billboard it replaces. 211 212 (4) No more than one (1) electronic display billboard structure shall be 213 allowed on any zonino lot. and no structure shall contain more than 214 two (2) electronic display faces. No more than one such face shall 215 be oriented in each direction and vertical stackinq of advertisinq 216 faces shall be prohibited. 217 218 (5) No electronic display billboard shall be located in or within four 219 hundred (400) feet of an Historic and Cultural District thereof. or 5 220 within two thousand (2.000) feet of any other electronic display 221 billboard. 222 223 i~n No electronic display billboard shall be located within the proiect 224 study area of the Virainia Beach Transit Extension Study initiated 225 by Hampton Roads Transit in May 2009. 226 227 (c) Illumination and disp/av requirements: 228 229 Q) No electronic display billboard shall exceed a maximum illumination 230 of seven thousand (7.000) candelas per square meter from sunrise 231 to sunset or five hundred (500) candelas per square meter between 232 sunset and one o'clock (1 :00) a.m.. as measured from the sian face 233 at maximum briahtness. No such billboard shall be illuminated. 234 either internally or externally, at any time between one o'clock 235 (1 :00) a.m. and five o'clock (5:00) a.m.. except as may be 236 necessary to display an emeraency or other public safety messaae 237 pursuant to subsection (e). 238 239 The city council may require that where the electronic display face 240 is visible from a Residential or Apartment zonina district. 241 illumination cease between midniaht and five o'clock (5:00) a.m., 242 243 if) Electronic display billboards shall be equipped with a workina 244 dimmer control device capable of automatically reducina the 245 illumination to required levels in accordance with subdivision (c) (1 ). 246 247 Q) No electronic display billboard shall display a messaae or symbol 248 commonlv used a traffic-control direction or warnina, and no such 249 billboard shall obstruct motorists' view of anv street sian, traffic 250 sianal. street or intersection. 251 252 ifi No portion of the messaae displayed by any electronic display 253 billboard. includina backarounds, colors, letterina, pictures or other 254 araphics, shall be chanaed more frequently than once every eiaht 255 (8). seconds. Movina, blinkina. flashina, scrollina or pulsatina 256 elements shall be prohibited. The entirety of each display shall be 257 chanaed simultaneously within a period of no more than two (2) 258 seconds. 259 260 {Q) No electronic display billboard shall contain any audio speakers on, 261 or electronically connected to, such billboard. 262 6 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 II (6) All electrical service lines providino service to electronic display billboards shall be underoround. (d) Landscapinq requirements: (1) Landscapino sufficient to fully screen supportino structures from all abuttino roadways at maturity, and any additional landscapino required by the city council. shall be provided by no later than the first orowino season after approval of the application. (2) All landscapino shall be maintained in oood condition at all times, and all veoetation determined by the city arborist to be diseased, dyino or dead shall be replaced in a timely manner consistent with oood landscapino practices. (e) Public safety requirements. Electronic display billboards shall be capable of displayino emeroency and other public safety messaoes transmitted by the city or other authorized aoencies in accordance with the protocol approved by the city council. (f) Enforcement. Noncompliance with any of the provisions of this section or the conditions of approval of an electronic display billboard by the city council shall be orounds for revocation of such approval: provided, however, that the zonino administrator shall provide prior written notice of such violation to the owner of the electronic display billboard and a reasonable period, specified in such notice, to cure such noncompliance prior to the institution of proceedinos to revoke approval or other enforcement action. COMMENT Section 218 sets forth the requirements for applications for electronic display billboards. Such billboards are allowed only as replacements of existing billboards on the same lot, and only by resolution of the City Council. The ordinance does not allow electronic display billboards under any other circumstances. Specific requirements are as follows: Subsection (a) sets forth the information that is required as part of an application for an electronic display billboard. The requirements include: (1) A site plan; (2) A landscaping plan; (3) Building plans; (4) An engineer's certification as to compliance with Building Code requirements; 7 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 (5) A manufacturer's certification regarding certain illumination capabilities of the billboard; (6) A plan for the City's use of the billboard to display emergency and other public safety messages; (7) Other information deemed necessary by the Planning Director to fully evaluate the application; and (8) A $400 application fee. Subsection (b) sets forth the requirements pertaining to the location and dimensions of electronic display billboards. They include: (1) Restrictions on the size of the billboard; (2} Restrictions on the height of the billboard; (3) Restrictions on the location of the billboard; (4) Limitations on the number of billboards on one lot and a prohibition of subdividing lots for billboards; (5) Prohibition of billboards in or within 400 feet of an Historic and Cultural District or in proximity to other electronic display billboards; and (6) Prohibition of billboards within the Light Rail Corridor Study Area. Subsectiolll (c) sets forth the requirements pertaining to the illumination and displays of electronic display billboards. They include: (1) Restrictions on the intensity of illumination of billboards and a requirement that they not be illuminated at certain times, except for emergency and other public safety messages; (2) Requirements for automatic control of illumination; (3) Prohibition of messages or symbols commonly used for traffic-control purposes and of locations that obstruct motorists' vision of streets, intersections, etc.; (4) Requirements that messages be static and displayed for no less than 8 seconds and the messages change within two seconds or less; and (5) Prohibition of speakers or other audio equipment. Subsection (d) sets forth the requirements pertaining to the landscaping of electronic display billboards. They include: 8 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 II (1) A requirements that full screening of the supporting structures of a billboard, as well as any other landscaping required by the City Council, be provided; and (2) Landscaping maintenance requirements. Subsection (e) requires electronic display billboards to be capable of displaying emergency and other public safety messages transmitted by the City or other authorized agencies. Subsection (1) sets forth the means of enforcement of the section and provides that the owner of an electronic display billboard in violation of this section shall he granted a reasonable opportunity to cure the violation prior to the institution of enforcement proceedings. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2009. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office CA-11248 R-6 October 13, 2009 9 II CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Supplementing the 2010 Legislative Agenda by Adding a Proposal for Legislation Requesting the Governor and the General Assembly to Increase Funding for the Virginia National Defense Industrial Authority so as to Maintain the Military Presence in Hampton Roads and Throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: The Virginia Beach City Council, at its Formal Session of September 22, 2009, adopted the 2010 Legislative Agenda. Since then, City Council has become aware that the Virginia National Defense Industrial Agency (VNDIA), which acts to maintain defense industry interests in Virginia, had its funding cut considerably in the last few years. A 21% cut in funding has occurred since 2007; when the budget was $510,000. Even at $510,000, the budget is not adequate to protect defense activities in Virginia compared to what our competitor states such as North Carolina, Florida and Texas are resourcing. Also, the State has been unable to provide funding to the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance (HRMFFA), a regional organization which works diligently to preserve federal and defense activities in Hampton Roads that directly affect the economy. The recent State of the Region report stated that 45% of the economy in Hampton Roads is now based on the military. The State should and must increase funding to maintain the military presence in Hampton Roads. . Considerations: The General Assembly should provide additional funding to VNDIA, which should then pass through resources to the HRMFAA and other similar organizations for the purpose of aggressively preserving and strengthening the military presence throughout the Commonwealth. . Public Information: Public information will be handled through the usual City Council agenda process. . Attachment: Resolution Requested by Councilmember Uhrin REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER UHRIN 1 A RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTING THE 2010 2 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA BY REQUESTING THE 3 GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MORE 4 FULLY FUND THE VIRGINIA NATIONAL DEFENSE 5 INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY (VNDIA) 6 7 WHEREAS, the City Council has become aware that funding for VNDIA, which 8 works on statewide basis to maintain defense funding throughout the Commonwealth, 9 has been significantly reduced; and 10 11 WHEREAS, the recent State of the Region report released by Dr. James Koch 12 from Old Dominion University indicates that 45% of Hampton Road's economy is based 13 on military spending, and 14 15 WHEREAS, our competitor regions and states, such as North Carolina, Florida 16 and Texas, are spending considerably larger efforts than what the Commonwealth is 17 committing to maintain their military and federal activities generally. 18 19 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 20 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 21 22 1. That the City Council hereby requests that the Governor expand funding 23 to VNDIA in his budget to be presented to the General Assembly on December 18, 24 2009. City Council is aware of the fiscal constraints facing the Commonwealth, 25 however, it is vital that defense industry and defense spending be given as much 26 attention by the Commonwealth as possible, which is VNDIA's primary goal. 27 28 2. That the City Council hereby requests that the Governor and General 29 Assembly support legislation whereby additional monies would be provided by the State 30 to the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance (HRMFFA) to promote 31 and protect defE~nse spending and other federal activities in Hampton Roads. 32 33 3. That the City Clerk shall provide certified copies of this resolution to the 34 Governor and the members of Virginia Beach's General Assembly delegation. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this day of ,2009. APPROVED TO CONTENT: nager's Office APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: :e~ ;&;- City Attorney's Offic --.... CA11317/R-1/0ctober 30,2009 II I';C:\~~\"~~l~:'t tl ,{~l' ~ .~.~,/,!i;,'Oj /9', ' - .;c;) \tt"",1 ...'................... CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the Department of Homeland Security to the FY 2009-10 Operating Budget of the Police Department MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Port Security Grant Program is funded by the United States Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency as part of the 2009 Infrastructure Protection Activities Program. The Department of Homeland Security awarded $64,600 to the Police Department to enhance the ability to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from attacks on the port systems. . Considerations: There is no local match requirement for this grant. The Port Security Grant Program will fund the purchase of dive equipment for the Police Department's Marine Unit. Funded equipment includes dry suits and masks. This equipment will allow the Police Department to more effectively patrol security zones within the Port of Hampton Roads, improve dive team training, and give assistance to other agencies. . Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal Council Agenda process. . Recommendations: It is recommended that Council accept and appropriate the grant award of $64,600 for the purchase of dive equipment. . Attachment: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Police Department ~ f7 r1 rn J City Manage~ ~ .~<Y't. 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE 2 FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 3 SECURITY TO THE FY 2009-10 OPERATING BUDGET OF 4 THE POLICE DEPARTMENT 5 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 7 VIRGINIA: 8 9 That $64,600 is hereby accepted from the U. S. Department of Homeland 10 Security Federal Emergency Management Agency through the 2009 ARRA Port 11 Security Grant and appropriated, with federal revenues increased accordingly, to the FY 12 2009-10 Operating Budget of the Police Department. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of ,2009. Requires an affirmative vote by the majority of all of the members of City Council. Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: {2 \0 n , nO Of\A() ,J~ anagement Services ~~-- City tt ney's Office CA 11315 R-2 October 29, 2009 II CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funds from the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: The Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Local Solicitation is a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that assists law enforcement and criminal processing programs. The Byrne JAG supports a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime based on local needs and conditions. The Criminal Justice Board, which is comprised of City representatives from Police, Sheriff, Courts, and Community Corrections, agreed upon the recommended use of this grant funding. . Considerations: The total award for this grant is $214,208. The Virginia Beach Criminal Justice Board recommends that the funds be used as follows: $13,000 to the Police Department for the purchase of night vision goggles $30,940 to the Police Department for the purchase of surveillance equipment $43,000 to the Police Department for a security improvement to the 4th Precinct parking lot $93,875 to the Sheriff for a security camera upgrade $19,390 to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for a contracted expungement clerk $2,148 to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for an on-line training subscription $11,855 to Circuit Court for a Media Evidence Display System . Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal Council Agenda process. . Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council accept and appropriate the grant award of $214,208 for the use of funds as suggested by the Criminal Justice Board. . Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance Submitting DepartmentlA~~ncy: Police Department City Manager:~ 1:'.. ( ~ M frr7 Atn-S- 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS 2 FROM THE EDWARD BYRNE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 3 GRANT 4 5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 6 VIRGINIA: 7 8 That $2'14,208 is hereby accepted from the U. S. Department of Justice and 9 appropriated, with federal revenues increased accordingly, to the following agencies and 10 departments in the amounts and for the purposes set forth below: 11 12 a. $13,000 to the Police Department for the purchase of night vision goggles; 13 b. $30,S140 to the Police Department for the purchase of surveillance equipment; 14 c. $43,000 to the Police Department for a security improvement to the 4t1i Precinct 15 parking lot; 16 d. $93,875 to the Sheriff for a security camera upgrade; 17 e. $19,390 to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for a contracted 18 expungement clerk; 19 f. $2,148 to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for an on-line 20 training subscription; and 21 g. $11,855 to Circuit Court for a Media Evidence Display System. of Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the 2009. day Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of all of the members of City Council. Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: ,9-~O,t~J~ Management SE~rvices ~ - .---- CIty rney's Office CA11316 R-2 October 29,2009 II CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Create Capital Project #3-151 - COPS Law Enforcement Technology Grant and to appropriate $800,000 from the Department of Justice MEETING DATE: November 10,2009 . Background: In previous years, Virginia Beach secured grant funding and implemented a regional 700MHz network (ORION) providing interoperable emergency communications within Hampton Roads. 'This network provides the means for public safety personnel in' Hampton Roads to be able to interact and share resources by utilizing the most effective voice and data communications means possible. The COPS 2009 Law Enforcement Technology Grant is $800,000. . Considerations: This grant requires no local match. The ComlTfTelecommunications Division, in conjunction with a professional engineering firm, will provide the required analysis, engineering and project management. This grant will support the expansion of the current capabilities by providing an additional command center trailer, a geographically central location to support the wireless interfacing and backhaul of the interoperability communications equipment, and associated communications equipment. . Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal Council Agenda public information process. . Recommendations: The recommendation is for City Council to authorize Capital Project #3-151 and appropriate $800,000. . Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Communications and Information T eChnOIOg~~ City Manager~&k .~~ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE CAPITAL PROJECT #3-151 - COPS LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY GRANT ft.ND TO APPROPRIATE $800,000 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEft.CH, VIRGINIA, THAT: 1. Capital Project #3-151 - COPS Law Enforcement Technology Grant is hereby established as a project in the FY 2009-10 Capital Budget; and 2. $800,000 is hereby accepted from the U.S. Department of Justice and appropriated, with revenue from the federal government increased accordingly, to Capital Project #3-151 - COPS Law Enforcement Technology Grant in the FY 2009-10 Capital Budget to procure mobile communications services and equipment supporting regional communications needs, and to establish a geographically central location supporting the wireless interfacing and backhaul of the interoperability communications equipment. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day of Requires ern affirmative vote by a majority of all of the members of City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: u ~ II .<:J~~~, ~~~ Ci Att6r 's ffice CA11314 R-2 October 29,2009 II K. PLANNING 1. Ordinance to AMEND the Comprehensive Plan re: The Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan and REPEAL the 1991 Virginia Beach Central Business District (CBD) Master Plan. RECOMMENDATION APPROV AL 2. Application of BRY ANT & STRATTON COLLEGE for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a private university or college in the existing building at 4740 Baxter Road. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 3, Application of BEACH BINGO, INe., tla PEMBROKE HALL for a Conditional Use Permit re relocation of existing bingo operation to the Chimney Hill Shopping Center at Suite 809, 3600 Holland Road. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 4. Resolution to APPROVE the location of the existing mobile home at 2348 Vaughan Road. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 5. Ordinance to AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO): a. S211 re: time limitations on political campaign signs posted on private property. b. S201 re: setbacks for front porches (requested by Council Ladies Rosemary Wilson and Barbara Henley). c. S203, 900, 901, 902 and 905 re: The Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan. RECOMMENDA nON APPROV AL 6 Application of NEW FIRST COLONIAL ASSOCIATES for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-15 Residential District to Conditional 0-1 Office District re a dental office at 5315 Bonneydale Road (deferred by City Council October 27, 2009). DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE STAFF RECOMMENDA nON PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DENIAL APPROV AL 7. Application of ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.e. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional B-1A Limited Business and P-1 Preservation District at Chestnut Oak Way (deferred by City Council June 9, July 14, and August 11, 2009). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE RECOMMENDA nON APPROV AL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING , '1I:;:n,a Beaell City Cound wid n':et ,n '.be (ETter at City Hall, 'vlunici;'al '~f!ntE'r, ,'.+01 Courthouse Dnve, Tuesday, ~.ove'1~ber .: O. ::-:009. at 6:00 p.m. Tile ',!lcw:ng :;::piic:3t.ons wi!! be heard: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH (:rdinance to aml"nd the CompretJensive 'Yan by repealmg the provis,ons within the Pciic~ Document pertaining to the Virginia 8each Central Business District Master P'.:m, adding provisions to :he Policy 8oC'ull'ent pertaining to the Stratpgjc Growth ',rea 4 Implementation Plan.Pembroke Area, E.l'1opting the Strategic Growth i\rea 4 implementation Pla,,-Pemb'o~e Area :JY 'eference and repealing the 1991 V'ginis 8each Central Business District >laster Fan. '/dil"ance to amend Sections 203, 'JOO, ',101, 902 and 905 of the City Zoning Jrdlnance oe1taining to tile Str:w,gic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembrol(e .\rea, O'c;nance to amend Section 211 of the Clt. :::cning Ordinance pertaining ',0 pc1itica >,mpaign signs. Ordinance to amend Section 201 of :he City ~:oning Ordinance pertaining to t>ctbacks 'or (l'I)'1t porches in the R-75. Ria and R-1.5 R';sldential zoning districts. !?OSE HALL DISTRICT 3each Bingo, Inc. T/ A Pembroke Hal! C"'mney rliII Center Virgil1la Beach. VA. lTD. ~;,pIiGation: Corditional USELE?Jmlt re iim "",sembly use/bingo hall at 3600 Holland Road, Suite 809. Chimney HHI S10pping Center. KEMPSVILLE DISTRICT Bryant & Stratton CohegejGee's Properties, L,L.C. Application: QQnditionaLLse Pgrm!.t re a private university or coilege at 4740 l3dxter Road. PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT Endeavor Enterprises, 1.1.C. 'ppllcation: ~r~a..J:&! of ZQrurg Oi'?trict Clas5iflql!iQO from :,G-1 and AG-2 ,\griculturaJ to Conditional B-iA Limited Business and P-l P'eservation at Hotland Road and Ghestnut Oak Nay (GPINs 1495417336; .519518; 5126(6). Comprehersive Plan: Pnr ary Res:dentlal Alea. Purpose: office '~nd 'etai!. Ail ;nterested citizens are 'rwitec to attend. 'iuth Hodge~; Fraser, MMC C.ty Cierk Cco:es of ',Ioe proposf'd O':1:[1:H':C6S, '(solutions and ameraments are on file and ray be e;811l:ned :n the DepartrlGIlt Of Panning or on:!I1e at "!~www~ybgov,9om/~ For irfOi'rr aMn call :385.4621. If ) au are phYSically disabled or visually impaired and reed assistance at this meting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE dt 385-4303. Qeacon Jet. ~01i f'll. "jell. 1, ~~GC? ~.:.07:?~~249 :i;3"\^.i1~';~1~ \":,. :; '....._.,;,..'"~-). CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan - Pembroke Area MEETING DATE: November 10,2009 . Background: An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by repealing the provisions within the Policy Document pertaining to the Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan, adding provisions to the Policy Document pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area, adopting the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area by reference, and repealing the 1991 Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan. The City Council was provided a copy of the referenced plan under separate cover. . Considerations: The purpose of the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan - Pembroke Area is to provide effective, long term planning and policy guidance for the 1,200- acre Pembroke Area. The Pembroke Strategic Growth Area (SGA) is one of many such areas cited in the Comprehensive Plan to absorb much of the city's future growth. To absorb that growth, significant changes will be needed in type and form of land uses, transportation systems, energy and environmental management, public service delivery, and community design, among other elements. This Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan -- Pembroke Area provides a systems-based approach that describes, orchestrates, and recommends how these various elements can work together to accomplish the long-term planning goals for this area. The organization of the Pembroke Plan begins with a description of the extensive public input process used to help develop this document. It includes background information, presents existing conditions, and places the Pembroke area in the context of the entire city and larger region. Six subdistricts are identified within the Pembroke SGA. While each subdistrict has a defined purpose and unique placemaking characteristics, each one also embodies the common principles cited above. In addition, the Pembroke Plan's policies reaffirm the importance of quality urban development, preserving CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - SGA 4 PLAN Page 2 of 2 established neighborhoods, promoting arts and culture, providing a complement of effective transportation modes such as light-rail transit, promoting energy efficient growth, protecting natural resources, introducing 'form-based' zoning, and advancing the city's long-term economic vitality, among others. There was no opposition to the adoption of the amendments. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to recommend approval to the City Council. . Attachments: Staff Revew Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. V Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department CltyManag~~ k-. ~~ II 14 October 14,2009 Public Hearing CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PEMBROKE SGA 4 PLAN REQUEST: An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by repealing the provisions within the Policy Document pertaining to the Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan, adding provisions to the Policy Document pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area, adopting the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area by reference, and repealing the 1991 Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT The purpose of the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan - Pembroke Area is to provide effective, long term planning and policy guidance for the 1,200-acre Pembroke Area. While this area encompasses the Virginia Beach Town Center, a relatively new, vibrant, and growing mixed-use urban center, the remaining area is dominated by an automobile-dependent, suburban pattern. The Pembroke Strategic Growth Area (SGA) is one of many such areas cited in the Comprehensive Plan to absorb much of the city's future growth. To absorb that growth, significant changes will be needed in type and form of land uses, transportation systems, energy and environmental management, public service delivery, and community design, among other elements. This Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan -- Pembroke Area provides a systems-based approach that describes, orchestrates, and recommends how these various elements can work together to accomplish the long-term planning goals for this area. The organization of the Pembroke Plan begins with a description of the extensive public input process used to help develop this document. It includes background information, presents existin9 conditions, and places the Pembroke area in the context of the entire city and larger region. Strategically, this Plan is based upon six development principles consistent with quality urban growth: . Efficient Use of Land . Full Use of Urban Services . Compatible Mix of Uses . Transportation Opportunities . Detailed Human Scale Design . Environmental Stewardship CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - PEMBROKE SGA 4 PLAN Agenda Item 14 Page 1 Six subdistricts are identified within the Pembroke SGA. While each subdistrict has a defined purpose and unique placemaking characteristics, each one also embodies the common principles cited above. In addition, the Pembroke Plan's policies reaffirm the importance of quality urban development, preserving established neighborhoods, promoting arts and culture, providing a complement of effective transportation modes such as light-rail transit, promoting energy efficient growth, protecting natural resources, introducing 'form-based' development, and advancing our city's long-term economic vitality, among others The Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan - Pembroke Area provides sound planning guidance, based upon effective public input, and will be a useful tool to achieve our long term vision for this important area of our city. RECOMMENDATION Staff recomme,nds approval of the proposed amendments, which consist of the following: . Repeal of the 1991 Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan (as referred to within the Appendix of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Policy Document); . Amend the 2003 Comprehensive Plan by repealing the provisions within the Policy Document that rEifer to the Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan; . Adopt the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan - Pembroke Area by reference within the Appendix of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Policy Document; and . Add provisions to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Policy Document referring to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan - Pembroke Area. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - PEMBROKE SGA 4 PLAN Agenda Item 14 Page 2 Exhibit 1-1 Recommended Amendments to the Pembroke Strategic Growth Area Implementation Plan's final draft as follows: On Page 33 under the heading, 'Urban Placemaking and Human Scale', add the following text to read: "The City specifically intends and designates this Strategic Growth Area to qualify as a special redevelopment district in order to promote public infrastructure, new construction, development and redevelopment." On Page 36, under the heading, 'Transportation Considerations for Future Development' add the following text to read: "Following further traffic analyses and as part of transportation improvement programming, identify appropriate roadway segments to reduce traffic speed consistent with the planning principles of this plan." 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE 2 PLAN BY REPEALING THE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE 3 POLICY DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO THE VIRGINIA 4 BEACH CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT MASTER PLAN, 5 ADDING PROVISIONS TO THE POLICY DOCUMENT 6 PERTAINING TO THE PEMBROKE STRATEGIC GROWTH 7 AREA 4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, ADOPTING THE 8 PEMBROKE STRATEGIC GROWTH AREA 4 9 IIVIPLEMENT A TION PLAN BY REFERENCE AND 10 HEPEALlNG THE 1991 VIRGINIA BEACH CENTRAL 11 BUSINESS DISTRICT MASTER PLAN 12 13 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning 14 practice so require; 15 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 17 VIRGINIA BE.A,CH, VIRGINIA: 18 19 1) That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach be, and hereby 20 is, amended and reordained by the deletion in the Policy Document of pages 21 68 tllroUgh 71 pertaining to, the Virginia Beach Central Business District 22 Master Plan, and the addition to the Policy Document of that certain 23 document, consisting of seven (7) pages, entitled "Strategic Growth Area 4 24 Pembroke Area", a true copy of which is attached hereto, and 25 26 2) That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach be, and hereby 27 is, amended and reordained by the deletion in the Appendix of the 1991 28 Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan and the adoption in the 29 AppE!ndix of the "Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan" 30 dated September 4, 2009. Such document is made a part hereof, having 31 been exhibited to City Council and is on file in the Department of Planning. 32 33 COMMENT 34 35 The ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan by deleting the portion of the Policy 36 Document pertaining to the Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan and adding the 37 provision attachfd, referencing the Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan. In 38 the Appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, the 1991 Virginia Beach Central Business District Master 39 Piau is deleted aDd the Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan is added. 40 41 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 42 day of ,2009. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: l\N\ CA11266 R-3 September 21, 2009 ~,- ' ,^. -,~--; APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: {JJiJ~/~./t!J. City Attorney's Office 2 ("t") .-l , N ,.. - ~ - ...; >- <. c. c ,- "" ~, ,'- .:. ~, .-- ""0 ~ -S ,~ ,.. '::i .... ~ E ~ -<:: ... -- ,- ... ' ' ... r' ...; ... 0 ~ ' ' -- v ' , '7 ~ c~ ~ ~ :s ~ C) V "" :..... ~ ... .::: ,; ... ?' .::: ~ ...... ,;", ~ C -: -- ... v "" C ,- ..- c . '- ... ... ::; -' " 'C "':; CD .;- 'J: -' '::: -'- ~ ..., ::: '. ':' - "-' ,.... ~ -c >- ~ l- .- 0 :'::i '" :-::: -- '.::; - ~ '" c:C -:::. If, ::l. f' . C. ". L c J, V '" ';:> ,.... u ... r ":: >- c ~; E -3 ~ c ~:- ;;:, ,J -' ~ ~ r ~ j., v c ---' w ;;> - :- .s:;:, C ". (;, .;;.. - '...' - '-v 9 ... - .> ~ -' :3'E- 2 1.J ... c.; S ~ < - ..' '- - I\; - -' ""' ~ .:::. :;,; - - ... J.; - s; ,...' -:;:, - l- V <. :: 'l" -s. .... ::; -;:r '... -' -' - ,- "" '- ,- ~< :::l -' ~ ,-. ..... -- Z r;:. '7 ;::; "" /> c: -0 J; ::> -' """ ~ ---' ;-: ... \.,0 c ..- ....., J, C -- :J C -' Z 0 71 .... .::; c 3 ..... - ::; ,.... :,; ...- c c.; r;:. ,~ ./ c ~ F\ ..D J' ' ' -;::: ~~. 5: <. :: -:!. ,- f .:::. E .. .~ ..... ... ~ ~ '- - ~ u ...... :J t f ;;:;. C- ""' .:::. ,.. ~ r -:) -' ;;:: ("4 C 6 ::>-- .... (J,,; r;:. ~ S:: -!. ,f, ~l .r S:- c, --' :; ~ ...... - "'" [:CJuu'-' \ .:;tC () r "" .- c ::; 3 ";" C r.l ~u. r ~ 0. c ,of., -;;:: ~ ~ f - '-' -c <- - 1- c; ,.. ~\ --' ,. -, .c '- 2 -' -' .... .' ........ - l.- e} ~ \.) -::; c c '"Z: ~..l', "" r;:. c.; u " ..D ~ .c c c - "" - - '"' c.- t: ...- ," ..:;, ... - - .r -, -- 1- .... .... .~ - "" r ..... ...... ... .s ,,.. >:) :. J::. -' " c ... J' '- I.- .." ';:> \ OGe U c :,,:; ::l 0 -' r -' '.c; 3 r;:. ~ ~ c - \~ & ~ x ... () c ~ :!:. .~ (.., c. I.- ,- ? :> - .... ::.0 ..... If, :=; r:; ..... "" c ..c t ::; .... .c \f) -i- .;.. u ? ..- r ""9, :P <;:: ~. c. .. \iG' ..;t; r ::: c:::. -' S -i- r;:. r' .... " -c .. ,.. :;,; ,~ :=. \u-- uJ .... g -0 ... ;- ,~ :v tf -0 './'i .... rw ->- ...; ::; c ~ . D ':J ';." ~ ~ c..' '0- -:::; '-' ..... ...., -' ..... 'f> .... ...- "" - t"'\ .c '- c ~ c C ~ .... C, r tf (J ,.. '3 CJ c: c; -' >- c c C :p v .?5 ... - <. .3 ,-' r;:. ~ ... c '- '. ,~ :::: () -c ... :::: '- CJ I.- 0 ..D -:l :::c cO - -: lIl:S" c:( UJ c:x: c:( :I: to- S 0<( c:x:uJ C)~ UuJ -~ C)o UJee. ~ca c:x:~ ~~ ..... "".,':'" ,t " ~,:__i~'-'~'.- II U'l U'l W Z U'l :;:) co ...I <( 0:: 1- Z <( w w Uo:: <(<( ~w <(~ wU ::.:: ........ o 1- 0:: U CO ii: ~ 1- w !:!1 0-0 <:: a i:: Q.. a:: \J 1:3 a ~ a:: <:::( LlJ a:: <3 u ~ Q .,L..j '~ 3'; ~ >, ;: - z ~ ~ .0-1 ,-. ......, .. ~ : '~"~n v: ',", Z ~ ~ :3 ~ - ~ .;.-' - V) :r. ::; ...... ::::; 0,; ~ ~ v r.;. ,.., - =,.8 ~ :r. ,.) ~ QJ := QJ ,.... C-" ~ ~_l J...J ~ ~ ~ .J: '~ 0 (l.l ..... :r. - QJ 8:...... c .~' - ~ ',..i- .n-::: >~. ..... :r; " :., - L ~.,;::_~--~b :0 '"'-' './: :..... CLi :J:. ""::i c... N r..t';~"; ~ -~~~~ E-U:=V:~' ~L '-:l ;:; ':,~ ?3;:: ::: ~ - ..;..; () <t 2"'~ '-' ,-. 2 'l) r:; ~ :> ;J. S 2 2 :;: l-< __, --c; . .,J <( ::: 0., = ....-J ~ ~ :=:"":: .-! ~::;.!:: o ~ <:( <lJ .... o ~ ..... \,J .;:: ..... ;5 '" '" <lJ c:: 'Vi ::3 co e ..... c:: 8 V) <:: a i:: ~ <:: Lu ~ ~ a \J Lu ex:: ~ a:: <:::( Lu a:: <3 :r. t: ~...q. :--s< ~ ...., ~ ,.....:.r:; ',/';..-:~ (j"':~ t~ :3 ~ ;--J....,i..:::::. ~ '.11 .. .- -- QJ ~~:;... '-..I..... ....... ,,- ~f; r..:.- V':: ~ ~ ..::::.. ~c~ .J-. = -':2 := ~ ;: c' :r. .~ c 2' i3 <( ~'~ v~c '"'fJ~, ~<..r- s::: '-'~ ~ 8 r-'2;:::..I-:c'::;::: .--:; .~~::: E _?_ r- ..d :jj <( UJ c::: ~ UJ ::.::: o c::: co z ~ 0 UJ U'l 0.. > ~_I ," '0 CG G 'I \"'\~ig,~.ggq., :::~. ~!8gc:j : 00 ; \ ffc lrJ -0 ~ cc ;:;;; '" c -= -' '- '..., ,;. (.., :1', eJ:: v: := .- iJ~ .......' ...... > ~!:: " -2 +-: "'"' :::: r-' ~.; t > ,- '0 == ~ if, 0 ~~?E~'CJ.-. ,~~ ~;1J ~ J.-' ~ c... c,O 0 :r: ~, ... .... >':I'~ ~''::j::; ;;.': ::; ~-1 ,.... -' <-' ::: r". ,',,} ,;.;. ~ ~ :> ~ ~ ~;: r ~ ...-' OM - ,." =: v ~ :::: ~ r-' c.:; ~ .-.-' s; .... ~ .- :... :::: 1) 'J: :.; &; ~ ;,,0.,.1,. ~ C :.(, ~- D C c....i J:-';$:-U ~ ::.r .- ~ ~ c.? rc u :r. - (J ,; - v:. ~ :::: ~ '''' \... -:~~fj :> ::; z :J U :.t: _~ :::: > --c~~: J- ..;.; ~ >< tLE - - - ~ :.t'. " :: ~ ,- : ~ :.: >-. -= 'S'i:"::: ::; .'4 ~_~ ::: '...- r: ...l-' ~ .- C; 3w :::: c..J ,.. ,.... :;- ~ :- '-' r- ('.) .~.i ~ =-.....1 ,.... 'J; ~.. ~ .......... ....J '" o ~ <:( ;:... <lJ c:: c:: o ~ ..... \,J ';:: ..... ;5 VI '" <lJ c:: 'Vi ::3 co e ..... c:: 8 :.; ..... '.f: ~ c b ~ '," ,... <( w 0:: <( >- w Z Z o co ';:::- U 0:: 1- U'l o U'l U'l W Z U'l :;:) co ...I <( 0:: 1- Z w U :r. ::; -' ~ 1.= ,.... ~ ~ f-~ ;:; C/: ~f: ,-. ~ ..".:...;,-. 0>:=:: .< ~--= ~ ,w ""'-' - :;;:? ;: ~ ~~ 2 ~; 2 '::....- ,^,'" - ~ ~ .- ,. E: < ~ : ~t' ~ :: < ;\J := ...... ~~~:;u~ ~ lfJ... -::; W ,-. r-". ,.... -' ~ 9 ,-- '."-, ~;,,/ re' ;/;_. r, .>; ~ - c ~ C:;._:::; ,'::i:J;:()" r-:; --- :I'J ><::' -.::::: ;:: z ~ ::; V": < -" ~ v: ~; ,- - ,- -- _- d: ::: C :::: - ,.... '..... c Z 'Oi.i :... ,-,,' ~ c :::: ~ -' :::: v. .J, := = w ~~ ?-' .'. rv -= v: :' ;,; :..' :::; <:: o i:: Q.. Ci: \J 1:3 a ~ a:: <:::( >- Lu <: <:: o co o::t rl , N ~ .J f: C) ~J ..s v .....i :--..:; "'0 z ~ ~ ;:: ! - ::...,. ,-. ~ ~ () 2: :: '-' :r. E ~ ~'!: z;::r:;~ ~ p ~ < ,... ~t ~ '- c:...._ .... - :o~I'J\-L:- :'J Q QJ C 2: ~ n .- ..., 'J: ;d ~ ,- f"". ~ n. ,..... :"~ Cl,; _.' ~ c :;: ".I' -' - ~, ...' ._ r:: -.:: . ;0" := ,- -' 'J --' ;:... :/; > !::.,. ::; :.:;,,':;.... ~ - ~S .- ..<. "'-- ':.,.t" ,..:.,; ..-- .,.,., ro OJ '- <( c ro .0 .... :;:) ~ -' 0- ~ IoU t; ct ~~ ZU <to: cc~ ~- :::>0 ~".",}~~;~;j , · ""':1" ",' ,~",):.~'.: \~{l;",'l,'" f ~: .' 'S;, A".'01t" ,WIl f4 ":, L,,[)' k""S'- :",~), ~:'-;'" ,",', ' ~r ' -~, ~.~"",\~.~" ..' ; t:>"~, , .' ... &;"" ...-",.,'-' " ,J. ,"" [","'" ' :t.;; if'* ..... ' "".. . f, " t ~~' '. \ '> :' ~, I I r r: ;,f:' ,:: :,<1;(', 11.~~~ t.... ,f .."'...'.......' ....... ",. ;: :~;"'.. "tI .....t <. ;;.t ,.t;:-' ,~ t ; , , '-.' "'.1 .J'/~""-. ~ . 11+"'" ,,# '''''4'''",,''' ,',' ~, fill'" ... ~; .,.. ~ "-l'.. ';,. 'J,:""'~',, 1l>,;\ a~ Jill ..,' ... ~" ,S ~, >t". ",->- , ".~ v , ,..~" ',,'" , , ~~~' J: -""' . ... ,; ,,:,-;';;1 ....;: :.,..J,Jf ~"y aU)Jll'}1~ F' ,0 " ;5 ,:;; " { 6 6 4- g ;; '" !:. ~ c<: ~ - 1 ~ ~~ ;: <i i "'" '" 7 < ~ d 6 ::l ~ ;; - '" ~ " ~ .,. ~ " :i> ~ c::: I ~ c:> ::l ;;; ,:; % ;, '" c.. ',J . . \ .. .. \Z... ~;:) ,\ 'v '- ,999~,C\ '-~,~ \- ' \ \i5~ \ rc;-' , 'wq " \"-' L-------~- II 0.... .- u ~ .:...J Z 'f: ~ ") '.'..i C P.....I :::; v ~ .- -J rc ~ a.. - c.; <-= ~ 0: ~ I- ~ Q 0: I.l.. 0: ~ ~ VI ~ Q i:: ~ ~ l.L.i ~ ~ Q u l.L.i Cr::: :.r: '-:......., :;2 G C).2 _ tcD'.- <-c --J E C ~ ~ '-:; u ::: ~~ ~ ~ c ~ o ~ ~ ..;...J c :> (~ c: :s: ~ .-..J ""0 , " ,., -<-I r...r: V (J ~ ~ - r: 0 :~ ~ ~.:: VI ~ Q i:: ~ ~ l.L.i ~ ~ Q u l.L.i a:: ~ 0: ~ >- l.L.i ~ ~ Q co ~ -' .- t "":i r-' t .-; f'""~~ ,-sr v __ v:. (.0:....... 2:: ~ ~'"" V =~-:; rc"( ;;~" ~ ,-, ::.., _f=~ ,-" .: ~ -' :- '~ ~ 2: u ..,,--' ~- . '-;; \Z, !~~9~ \".', ! ~ ~CJ"C::I ~'Lj..JULj \ ~- \ 'oed \.88 : \ \ f~ ~ c~ tJ: '.I: .8 J....,l ,- :.r. Vj P./; ~ ~ ~ B '.'J .- ~ rt .- .- .-, C- ~ '.f; .::. ~ u ~ r, -- C '1; .--' ';) r.:::: :: c .=. c u v ..- :: v: 5 ~- ~ ~, ;~ :~,fJ ~ ~.'-' == :: -- '-' J" ',....' (..i __. ~ :: f 1""<..'" < :J"; '" o ClJ ... <::( .... c: o {; ... ClJ ~ ':;::;. <.J ";,: .... "~ a '" '" ClJ c: "Vi ::3 co e .... c: ~ '"-, >__ "-:J ._ -,=:' ;- ,-' ~ " ;> ::w '" .-, "-' ~ -, :r, .... ::: (.. ::: :;> -, ::: >::::: ."'.... ~; .- ::: ~ -, oW ~ c.., .::: '0 ,~ ,.- G '.v 5 s~ :...; - ~L "' ..,(- (- ;::.. ,;: u > ." ~~; .:...J .- ;; v ~ ,- .;::., C) z ......- :.,i ~ ~ ~ {~ --' :..J ::: r:; - './: I"""'" :;.; -c -25 ~.'- 2;..::: ~r:; ::: v = -i .- ~:.:: :2- "_ --'-= .;...I ~ 'v b""c Q Q.>;::: v: o - ,- ~) E= ::.:. ~ ... . 0 0... 1J c: o ClJ <.J o Q. VI C ClJ Q. Q a~ ::..' ~"'. ..:-; _, :;;J) ,2:; ::: :3 ": ";i: :z :3 .,...; "" .", ::: ~ ~ ~ ';2' :- E ;:.. ::. '::; '. ,... ., ~-'" ;:; " f- U 0::: f- Vl o UJ 1.9 <l: -l -l :> -l <l: 0::: f- 2 UJ U ...:: r- _CD ~ :S -:-: .:...J '"' CJ r:; Z .0 ::5 :;-;. r.'" I..'J.,. - - _~~?Jr- -' ;:: .',", ;:: t ':= t w t r: ::: t: (j .- ,- ':"t- <7' '-!:: C'~ I ._. ~~ -' ~, - :5 --::c .:::' ~ Q i:: Q.. cc u :::J a ~ :: .-, .:- C,~ :/'; C ~ -:- :: l' _ V1 ~ ~ v: ,- 2 b~ , ;; ~ - c; ~_\ 7 ::,0 ~~~_~o l~ .::; , r"""" C.f~ ~, "'C' ~~ s: 0 v) - '.... () >. v: ~ .-0 >".-, -~ -::; c:: C ~ v i...,) ::: :.J := .:: r- > ;.: ,-' (J c.; c ~n :." ':1: ::; ~ ..x , ,-.,'; '/1 (.;-::i :.r: :::; -' ~ :r: ,- .~.c C) ..... -< ~ .r. ~ ~ ~ 8 ::-' ~ ::: <( UJ 0::: oCt f- 2 o 0::: LI- 0::: UJ ~ $ f::: u 0::: f- lJ') o Vl Vl W Z Vl ::J co -l < a:: f- 2 w U ~ <.0 M N :.r: _ v ~ ~ ..-l 3 c '-, ~ ~ .;....l ;-- :...-: .- .- :.... ':: ~ ....... t:: '-' "- , ,- -~ ,- "J'"': -E ~ z ,'~ :=: ~ ~t ~~ 'JJ rr :> :.;: !:: ;2 :-' VI ~ Q i:: ~ ~ I.U ~ ~ Q u l.L.i Cr::: ~: ~ '- ~ ~ u "c u -c c:c ,?-f.:' ,- v: c- _ t,,; S ~ - c ::: . , --; '- v: :J ~ c: .\.. Q -' :r: - ~ ~,-:.no ..... :'<'2 z ~c :r:. .....,)~ z :- z ~ ~ ~' 'lJ () ~ ~ ,- ~ '..' '--' -' ...; ~ Q i:: Q.. cc u :::J a ~ 0: <:( I- ~ Q 0: I.l.. 0: l.L.i f- ~ (""" ::> ,"' :: _.1.; F :> :f '..,,' - ~-:::' ~ -' (,.J ~ r- ,- _ ,.-, -' .;:i -- ~ ~~, ::; -:=: ra Q) '- <l: c ra -0 '- ::> ~ 'S '2 -C.. ...->>' ..... ~ :..;: > ~ '"D () "-' :J ~ u:' 'J. ~ r:.:: ~ $: "'G "'- h -- ? .0.- ~I:;-COO I ~;c eooc; I jC co" , I "- , 'co 'I \188 =; \m! igq :.c ~ ::; :: ~r_ ......; -..". -' ~ ~ ~ ~ -' > ~ =~ ~ =: ~ -: -.,'.l" ~ '- ~ ..; -. ~ , ~, i.::J ~ S~ - ~ , ? '"'" ~ .."'-....., d JJ c:'" ~ = VJ ,,,) :v -'- v .;- -' ", f; Q.; '/) './) :.; o := 2 V; :;; 'JO ~ :: :.- ;i- '.::: '- '::' :::.. ::..,.:: ;:., ...." ~'-" ~" , c '-'- ~' :s - .- --' ~ =: - ~' -;:; 'w u ~ '-' :.r: c J'j ~: ;..--.( :.,.; '-' ::~~ ~ :"1 :; c:: ~ ~ >- ~ .> -' --' :.; ~i': C- -:; ~ C~ ~ .::: ~.~ > $ ~ ": .:. --' ..'. :.- , > Cr. ..- f; = :.r: '-' ~ ') -' ::) .~ :; 5: -. ~ --' ~ CO :.. -- >.C= ./;; ~ ~ ::: '-' o :: 5: < c) '~ r- ~ ..:-.) ':-) ~ :::.. , , -3 "- :,C .::: :- :::. ::, ;:. ,-".".. "'" ,0 -", ~:.. ....- ,~ I- U 0:: l- V') o $ I.i..l ~ 0:: o C- o:: o u Z 0:: w J: I- ::> o V) .. ~ > 2: ~ .. -' ~ >> :...., '-" , - '- "'" .\ ~ " -, ;. :; ~ ~"": r ;; := ,~ , ~ :..; ..... :; S 2>;- - " o ..:; ':::[,,:: < o ;:: Cl.. 0: u Vl IJ.J a - :t t~ '....J "'-J ::: , --"' _ "v :t': ,.,,-. "":) , z 'C :... .;;..,.J r- <<-. -:.-.~, '",", '- :::: Q :' ~ -:::; ::: ~ ~/ :.--::J 5c:? ':: ~ ,v - -.... '-' :.. '. ,,, 'J', v := :',i ~ Q:: .... .J:: .~ .... '1:J s::: tl 1? g ~ ::3 o co llJ ~ s::: llJ '1:J s::: llJ ~ .s: ,... ~ >- ::; :; ~.c.~ ~ -- r:; .V ; CJ: :; z :::..,.;;; v ,.., -l-' ~--::; ~ ~ ::- Vi < o ;:: ~ < IJ.J ~ ~ o U IJ.J c:c > ,:.." ~, -: c... t:!. = :: ~ ~ 'f "- :v\ ~ ('.} - > '.f~ :::. > ;; ,... ""C 0 ::;; -0 ~ o :,r '/: 2 z ~ ~ :.... '..... '- '"'~ f- U 0:: l- V) o (/') ::> 0- ~ <r u z 0:: w l- V) w 5: < o ;:: c.. c;: u ~ Q :... ''-' ,.. ...:;: ,.:-IN $ -' ;:) :;:' ;~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~ ,,' .'-, ~ >-, '~ ~, > S'2 -' ~ "'" <: c: :-w ", ~A~~ S r;::: '-' :;:: .- A_ S ~ :; --' :J: u ~ -' './) ::; " ,~ .;..v 2 '- '-' ::::: :::.; :: '- '-- 'f: 2 ':- '-' - .." ::3 Q. E a E ~ .." ~ ":;:::. ~ .;:: .... .~ Q ~ s::: .~ co ] c: ~ o .:u ',' ',-, ~ :> ..... ~, ':...i ~ ~ :.. ;:::; -: ~ ~ -' ,..;...~ "., \.cc N , ~'- '" " ::: =: J: ,~ ,- ~' .:.; ~'..;,.,i ::; ~ -= -; '.) ::.- :.t', Vl < o :- ~ < I.:..i ~ ~ 8 I.:..i CC ...; -l-i '- .- '-' '-' J. ~ ~ ;::: - ::; ? :::. 'f' .,... I'- ..-{ N './) '';: :. "-' :.,,: .- '-' 'i' ::; :; ~ ./: -' I"'~ -' :.r - -. :> ::J ...:l :....; > "oJ ..... :;: Q.; :-.. ? ~: "" >-. :..; ~- -' ..... ~ :.;: .(:. ;j /' ::: ::~ '.- n:l CIJ .... <( c: n:l D .... ::> II 00 .-l I N u ~ v I.:> ::> C UJ "'? ~ (Q ~ ::: ,;:; 2 >, ~ ,... -::::; ~ .... -- Vi ::> !:: 0:: 2 .V -0 ,'''' C ~ I- w ..... "-' 'v ,... ,., 'S Vl ~ r- :::: c: .t::. 3= 8 Ct c... UJ ..- < ~' ..s c CD C ;:; '""0 -- .~ v; ~ ::::; ....., < , C ::> ~ , W ,:).I 'C ~ " , 'E >, ;> u (j1 0 W ~ U > ".... (j1 ~ ., 0:: --- 0 ..... .- 2 '" ::: <li -' .:::: u a:l t: ~ (;; . , ::;, "- c '-' - :.,! P C. w S2- ::: ......' Cf) :- >- : ~ w - :.0- J:, .v '"' -:::; .c v ~ J3 >- .~ ?: UJ c; ....., ,..,.... ~ Vi :-' .,.. 3 CL > s:;; ,-' .c () :>, 2 "-' ... rt 0:: .:l) c.. s::; .- .,.. ;. ....., ~ ...... t:c ;> 1:. 0 C ;> ~ ,... cs; ::> 2; ~J "s:; ~ ::: "-' '-' U J-> r - J:, ,... \.''': u.. .,.., ::: ..s -:::: -' ~ ~ 1<("\ ~ ~ 2 V'l ;:: v,,'; ,,.. ~ "< ~ .;: c: ...:.;' ,... z ~ v. <:C ,.... ;> C/1 C u ->2 ,- 'ij c; u 0 - lJ E. v. ....., ("C r: ~ :J r../":. -' ~ a v:~ '::! "-' 0) ~ ~ ,... ...... A -, (C ~ '.;': ,.. .- ~ ,... .-- u Q) \/") ~. ...... ....., ~ 'S. .2 ,.-. ,... -:- '..,.' c/"J. '::! ~ 0 ,-' '';:; ,., - -2 ~ - Q - 'f. , fC :) '(3 z "-' ~ ...J C "-' ...... ,... fC "- 0 ,- .::;; .,.., .... '-' UJ ~~ .;-I '-' ~.1: ~- ,." ...... '- ,- .... rj') ..D ~ - -~ ~ () ,... x ..::::: ....1..: :::.J .-:: ,~ :- ::: r........ :::: ~ <::t ~ 'S "- r;:; ::: ~ ::> ...,0 "s:; 'f; 8 ~ - ....., .-,c. .... - ~ :c s 0 4: r: ;:: - ..c -' c ;:; - ::: u UJ c... 3: -;: ;.....; ::., u r:- -:::; -:::; UJ 0:: ~ .c ...J .,,; <t; ,... 0:: <C " .:::: --.., , . .- k c: $ ,- ...,0 - ~ c - ('7j c: -' './". CL V; ; .2: -J .- U ,'..j .'" ::: ,- ,~ ;3 ::c .- c ,- - 4: I- 'l; ::: 75 ~, ~ c u 0:: c.. ::or:: ;:: ,::E '~ ..... $ :::: " -;, E . Q) :.r; "-' w ,~ ..... ;,/: :... ~' > v sv z 0 i- ',j", r-. ,... ;.F., ,,' ~' ::: 0:: c. r..:.:: ,- -,,'" .', '- ;; c ~ 0) '.... w ,... <.9 19 . ,- c .- "Z , '" " " . - \'~ -- \ 1,:JGDU ' '''-' ~[)GGg \ "-~'~G~,:,. ~,,' lowL-' ~ '~. ~G \ ~D =~, - - " ~ t :, ~:: 100 10\. OlJl1IlIYll) :<.\ \ '%, ~ ~ ~ f. ~ ~ ~ '~ :s % 2: d. '" - '" 1\ ~ 1 !C ~~ ~~ ~ t> \,: . \ .. <i i g '" ~--- ... ~ -:;- .- ~\\\-:~ 18* ~ II Item #14 & 15 An ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by repealing the Provisions within the Policy Document pertaining to the Virginia Central Business District Master Plan, adding provisions to the Policy Document pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area, adopting the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area by reference, and repealing the 1991 Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan with Exhibits 1 and Exhibits 1.1. An ordinance to amend Section 203,900,901,902, & 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area October 14,2009 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next items are 14 & 15. An ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by repealing the provisions within the Policy Document pertaining to the Virginia Central Business District Master Plan, adding provisions to the Policy Document pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area, adopting the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area by reference, and repealing the 1991 Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan with Exhibitsl and Exhibits 1. . An ordinance to amend Section 203,900,901,902, & 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area. Tom Pauls: Madame Chair and Planning Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be here. Very briefly, I just want to say that this ten month process had an incredible amount of input, and the effort towards where we are today. The steering committee did an amazing job. I want to recognize David Redmond and Ron Ripley, as Planning Commissioners on the steering committee, who also helped us measurably during this process. This plan will provide land use, transportation, environment, open space, parks, urban design, and guidelines for form-based codes, among other things. I think it is a really good foundation and a very good document from which we can begin to implement the planning policies cited in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The project team included the CMSS Architects, Kimley-Hom, Delcino Miles, and I want to recognize Cynthia Whitbread-Spanoulis from the Department of Economic Development, because she contributed an incredible amount of work to make this the success I hope it will be. So, with that, I thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Thank you Tom. Is there any opposition to these matters being placed on the consent agenda? Madame Chair, I make a motion to approve agenda items 14 & 15. Janice Anderson: We have a motion by Joe Strange. Item #14 & 15 City of Virginia Beach - Implementation Plan Page 2 Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Janice Andersen: A second by Gene Crabtree. Ronald Ripley: Madame Chair? Janice Anderson: Yes. Ronald Ripley: May I make a comment if you don't mind? Janice Anderson: Regarding item 14. One of the new amendments that Tom Pauls handed out dealt with transportation considerations in the future. And he talked about following further traffic analysis as part of the Transportation Improvement Program, identify appropriate roadway segments to reduce traffic speed consistent with planning principles in this plan. I just want it on the record to state that this segment that we we're talking about, because this is a general statement that refers to the entire planning district which is good. But what prompted this, and I just want it on the record, that we we're talking about specifically looking at speed limits right in the immediate Town Center area on Virginia Beach Boulevard, hopefully looking to reduce that to 35 mph. That is in keeping with the recommendation ofthe Central Business District Association. I would just like to have that on the record. I mentioned to Tom that I would bring this up, and so noted. Janice Anderson: Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Go ahead. David Redmond: While we're at it, one other quick comment, which I know Mr. Ripley shares because we're (\oing this by consent very quickly. I just want to thank Burrell Saunders and his team from CMSS, Tom Pauls and the entire Planning staff, the Pembroke SGA 4 Implementation Plan. It is as good of a work product I've seen. It's probably as good a work product that we could find. It is an extraordinary plan. It was a terrific process. It is no great surprise that we got something bat good, given how the process was planned and implemented. So, I'm very proud of that effort Tom, Burrell, all you guys did just a fantastic job. It is by no means farfetched either. I think moving towards this, you know, something with an awful lot of thought as opposed to knd of a half-hazard way of developing. It is really an advance for this community. I think it is something we all can be proud of. So thank you all. Janice Anderson: Thank you for those comments Dave, Are we ready for the vote? Bill MacaIi: Madame Chair, the vote on the SGA plan will include the amendments provided to the Commission from Mr. Pauls, as well as this new one. Janice Anderson: That's correct. Item #14 & 15 City of Virginia Beach - Implementation Plan Page 3 Bill MacaIi: For the record. Janice Anderson: Yes. Thank you. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS LIV AS AYE REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE ABSENT ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of9-0, the Board has approved agenda items 14 & 15 for consent. II ,~~~.,~ r.S~~,..~ ~"~':'Jy..,,, /c~/'.~ .,7i:~ :f; \1~ ~: \ l:j \,'~~,,~.y:,;/j! ............- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: BRYANT & STRATTON COLLEGE, Conditional Use Permit, private university or college, 4740 Baxter Road. KEMPSVILLE DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow use of classroom space within the building located on this parcel as an extension of the existing school located across Baxter Road. The property was originally constructed as a shopping center with a food store anchor. The building is primarily occupied by a large marketing firm with a few units occupied by medical and daycare providers. . Considerations: The school offers online and campus degrees as well as professional training. Degrees include business, legal and criminal justice, information technology, and medical assistance. During the past few years, the school has experienced significant growth and thus desires to add up to three classrooms for approximately 75 total students within the building. The evening classes typically conclude by 10:00 p.m. and are held on Monday through Thursday. Staff concludes that this site is an appropriate location for classroom space for a private college and provides an excellent reuse of a currently vacant space within this former shopping center. Since this center now includes non-retail businesses, the average daily traffic generated from this private school will not negatively impact adjacent roadways. There is ample parking on the site and the users of the classrooms will operate at opposite hours than most of the existing tenants. The Zoning Ordinance requires only six spaces per classroom. The overall parking requirement, therefore, is only 18 spaces. There was no opposition to this request. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to recommend approval to the City Council with the following condition: BRYANT & STRATTON COLLEGE Page 2 of 2 Prior to operating the school at this location, a Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official's Office. . Attachments: Staff Review and Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager:<:Ol> It. · ~6P'2.. II CUP - Private Un/wr"ty ur CuJlege REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit (private university or college) ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 4740 Baxter Road 10 October 14, 2009 Public Hearing APPLICANT: BRYANT & STRATTON COLLEGE PROPERTY OWNER: GEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn AK Smith GPIN: 14773021770000 ELECTION DISTRICT: KEMPSVILLE SITE SIZE: 202,451 square feet AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow classroom space as an extension of the existing school located across Baxter Road. The school offers online and campus degrees as well as professional training. Degrees include business, legal and criminal justice, information technology, and medical assistance. During the past few years, the school has experienced significant growth and thus desires to add up to three classrooms for approximately 75 total students within the existing building. The evening classes typically conclude by 10:00 p.m. and are held on Monday through Thursday. The property was originally constructed as a shopping center with a food store anchor. The building is primarily occupied by a large marketing firm with a few units occupied by medical and daycare providers. There is ample parking on the site and the existing users will likely operate at opposite hours than most of the existing tenants. The City of Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance requires only six spaces per classroom. The overall parking requirement is only 18 spaces. BRYANT AND STRATTON Agenda Item 10 Page 1 LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING lAND USE: former shopping center converted to office uses SURROUNDING lAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: . Duplex and single-family dwellings 1 R-5D Residential District . Apartments, offices 1 A-18 Apartment District, B-2 Community Business District . Office-Warehouse 11-2 Industrial District . Convenience store and offices 1 B-2 Community Business District East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are no significant environmental or cultural features on the property, as it is almost entirely impervious. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRA.NSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Baxter Road in the vicinity of this application is considered a four-lane divided minor urban arterial. The MTP proposes a divided roadway with bikeway within a 100-foot wide right-of-way. Currently, this segment of roadway is functioning over-capacity at a Level Of Service (LOS) "E." The Pembroke, Area Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CIP 2-238) is ongoing and involves a transportation study for the Central Business District surrounding Town Center. This study has developed short-term, mid- term, and long-term alternatives for transportation needs in the area with which the city can develop feasible projects in the Central Business District that will provide a benefit to the traffic flow in the area. The subject site is currently within the boundaries of the study area. TRAFFIC: Present Street Name Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Baxter Road 24,601 ADT 1 14,800 ADT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use;.! - 1 ,850 Service "C") - 27,400 ADT ADT 1 (Level of Service 3 Proposed Land Use - "E") 1 ,850 ADT 1 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by typical retail uses 3 as defined by addition of college WATER & SEWER: This site is already connected to City water and sewer. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION BRYANT AND STRATTON Agenda Item 10 Page 2 II Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this site to be within the Bonney Road West Corridor Area of Strategic Growth Area 4. The land use policies and objectives for the Bonney Road West Corridor area state that "Bonney Road West is recommended for mixed use development including medium intensity and medium to high-rise office, business, hotel, institutional and may include a mix of residential types, densities and values as well as community centers and compatible support uses." Evaluation: Staff concludes that this site is an appropriate location for classroom space for a private college and provides an excellent reuse of a currently vacant space within this former shopping center. As this former shopping center now includes non-retail businesses, the average daily traffic generated from this private school will not negatively impact already challenging existing conditions, Staff recommends approval subject to the condition below. CONDITION Prior to operating the school at this location, a Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official's Office. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, are required before any uses allowed by this Use Permit are valid. 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. BRYANT AND STRATTON Agenda Item 10 Page 3 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION BRYANT AND STRATTON Agenda Item 10 Page 4 " I '.~ . 11111 dJ , ' U!l!itu, I S ljJ, tU I ~'~, I'll U~JS!hU ';11 dlJf:: I _....kt...&U l .d'n..~ ! .~"~(:.90. os... II . ! ~ e : ,n11j)i :!; ~I~ ..i . \. :" ~ a"'~ .. tin. >- ... .tE V"'. ). . 'JiI' ~; ,~. _! . ir.l: .~I' ItC' .d., HIIJ: "1'1 ^I~~ I ,.If "" ~ .:'~ SITE PLAN BRYANT AND STRATTON Agenda Item 10 Page 5 CUP - Private University or College 1 12-11-07 MOD of Conditions Granted C7-10-07 MOD of Conditions Granted 02-11-03 MOD of Conditions Granted 11-14-00 MOD of Conditions Granted 06-13-00 MOD of Conditions Granted 07-13-93 Chanqe of Zoninq (R-5D to Conditional B-2) Granted 2 04-25-91 Change of Zoning (B-2, 1-2, & R-10 to Granted Conditional B-3) ZONING HISTORY BRYANT AND STRATTON Agenda Item 10 Page 6 ISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation. partnership, firm. business or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1, Ust the applicant name followed by the names of all officers members. trustees, partners. etc. below: (Attach list If necessary) Bryant & Stratton College: John J. Staschak, CPA MBA, MS, President & Chief Executive Officer; Francis J. Felser, C P.A., M.B.A., B.S.. Executive Vice President: John J Mitchell, M.S" B.S., Vice President; Beth A. Tarquino. M.8, Ed" 8,A. Vice President: Doreen A. Justinger, M.B.A.. B.8" Vice President: Tracy B. Nannery, M.B.A., B.S., Vice President 2, List all businesses tl1at have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entitl relationship with the applicant (Attach list if necessary) o Check here if the applicant is NOTa corporation, partnership, firm, bUSiness, or other unincorporated organization, PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different flOm applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership. firm. business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the followmg: 1 Ust the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners. etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Gee s Properties. LLC,: Joseph Gianascoli. Member: David Gianascoli. Member: Michael Gianascoli. Member 2, Ust aU busmesses that have a parent-subsldiari or affHiated business entityl relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ,,-~~-,_...,~..~.~ "__'_''''~'_'''''______________~_'~'U^'''__~'' _.._.,._ nn .___..,....___''',_.__,,_~~~~___.~~._~... '__~u.~..._~__~.....~~.___~_ ___v_ "->>"''''_''~_''_'''~'_'' _..._...._.. ~__..__..._,. ........._.,.,.,~w,,"~"'''__.... o Check here if the property owner IS NOT a corporation partnership firm bUSiness or other unmcorporated organization. Cnnctnmna. \,;<;'H Pe'rr t AppHcahor: Pfige9Mt;) Rev:sec :2C:(}4 z o I I !< u I I ......:1 ~ ~ f--4 I , ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ 1t::J I~ :Z o I ( f--4 I << Q Z o u BRYANT AND STRATTON Agenda Item 10 Page 7 z o J I ~ U J . .....:1 ~ ~ f-c ~ J:;I::1 ! ~ J:;I::1 ~ ;:::> , ~' o J . f-c J . ~, z: o U DISCLOSURE ST ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES Ust aU known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect t:> the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services, real estate services. financial services, accounting services and legal Eervices: (Attach list if necessary) Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C. Covington Hendrix Anderson Architects Site Improvement Associates, Inc. "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relattonship 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 ~ 22-3101, 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 (Hi) there is shared management or control between the business entities, Factors that should be conSidered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship lnclude that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entitles' 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 9 2.2-3101. !i CERTIFICATION: I certify that the Information contained herein IS true and accurate. I Jnderstand that. upon receipt of notiflcation (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 I a:;cording to the instructions in thiS package. Bryant & StrptWn CQileg~ By:',",,,.,, ". Gee's f7rope~es, l.L.Ci; 8y~._,"",--~_::.:c:< t '<ow'..... P'operty Owner s Signature 'if different than appiicant\ Lee E. Hicklin. Campus Director Print Nam~1 Michael Gianascoli. Member P'ir't Name Cord~hcnai Use P~tn"q Paqe cd 10 Pc\< ,se~0 St"t ?G,04 BRYANT AND STRATTON Agenda Item 10 Page 8 Item #10 Bryant & Stratton College Conditional Use Permit 4740 Baxter Road District 2 Kempsville October 14,2009 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next item is agenda item 10, an application of Bryant & Stratton College for a Conditional Use Permit for a private university or college on property located at 4730 Baxter Road, Suite 107 District 2, with one condition. Eddie Bourdon: Again, Madame Chair, for the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the college on this application. We very much appreciate being on the consent agenda. The one condition is obviously acceptable. Joseph Strange: Okay. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? If not, the Chair has asked Henry Livas to review this item. Henry Livas: The application requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow classroom space as an extension of the existing school, which is located across the street on Baxter Road. During the past few years, the school has experienced significant growth and thus desires to add up to three classrooms for approximately 75 total students within the existing building. The evening classes typically conclude at 10:00 p.m. The property was originally constructed as a shopping center with a food store as the anchor. There is ample parking on the site, and the applicant's users will likely operate at opposite hours than most of the existing tenants. Staff concludes that this site is an appropriate location for classroom space for a private college and provides an excellent reuse of the current vacant space. We concur with staff and have included this request on our consent agenda. Joseph Strange: Thank you Henry. Madame Chair, I make a motion to approve agenda item 10. Janice Anderson: We have a motion by Joe Strange. Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Janice Anderson: A second by Gene Crabtree. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 2 ANDERSON BERNAS CRABTREE HENLEY AYE ABSENT AYE AYE Item #10 Bryant & Stratton College Page 2 HORSLEY KATSIAS LIV AS REDMOND RIPLEY RUSSO STRANGE AYE ABSENT AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the Board has approved agenda item 10 for consent. Map G-8 Mop Not to Sc~,le Beach Bingo, Inc. tla Pembroke Hall ~,~~" -~ 1uwc;J '.~~II l~~;~~_",3' ~-~",. ~~~, ~4, " 1F:~{ '\~~";u ,,-~ ~' -Ii ~.' ~ 1m 1 ~~ ,J~~' .~ 'j'tf" ~ " 771 Q-.. - ~ ~j1 ~ """'\.~ !,.,j "R'.'tiINIl'J lIIo.\. ~ I ~~ N ~/ ~.,~ ~ ~" tltf 'h "J<I -.;" ,..~~ Ii ~.. "'-- o~ ' ~J ;. f ~ ~ ~~ rI ~ ~~ ~l'!. /m , ~ . ?" ~~ ~ ~ / \ ~ ~ ~~~h...~~ ~ ~ "" > VJPfJ ~ X / Xd" 0& ""'" 'I< %e " ..... ~ It''12 ~ ~ """. ~ :W~J )!'-'11-~ \3 \~ W))~ / ~ (i:, 1.- ,~/'),( / h .l""'" /'X K)<: ~ " ~18 \)", vv::. z..." ~'lV~7 1 ~,," -~ ' ~ ~<~~.. ~ ~~, ~~_ Cj A ~ ""," ~ 1<" "'''.. &~ ~ - i ~ J ~ '~ -,*:"IM ~/' r? '~ "" ~ ~~""""'J "'" ^/ /'-.. ~ to.. ..L 1/'/;..'......., i~ '. '-~ 'I'I- ./. ~~ ~......."l t9Al,.Ji~~Ql1rl~.J 70 Tfr...tt ~ ~~ )'11\' ~ ~ ,. ..., '" rl~ ;"',H. /", l'n ~ CUP for Assembly (Bingo Hall) {!:w CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: BEACH BINGO, INC. TIA PEMBROKE HALL, Conditional Use Permit, bingo hall, 3600 Holland Road, Suite 809, Chimney Hill Shopping Center. ROSE HALL DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow use of a currently vacant unit in the Chimney Hill Shopping Center for an assembly use (bingo hall). The applicant is relocating its existing bingo operation from Cleveland Street, where business was conducted for twenty years, to this shopping center. . Considerations: The applicant proposes to operate the facility two days per week on Tuesday and Thursday as permitted under Virginia regulations. The hours of operation will begin at 10:30 a.m. and end by 10:30 p.m. on those days. The submitted physical survey depicts a shopping center of 212,500 square feet with 1,021 parking spaces and outparcels. Access is shown from three sides of the property. The bingo operation will represent a net decrease in generated traffic during most of the week due to its limited hours of operation. The proposed use should generate no traffic during all morning peak hours, weekends, and afternoon peak hours on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Based on the stated 10:30 a.m. start time for Tuesday and Thursday evening games, the majority of traffic for these events will also miss the afternoon peak hour on the adjacent roads. There was no opposition to this request. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to recommend approval to the City Council with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits, inspections, and a certificate of occupancy from the Building Official of the City of Virginia Beach before a business license is issued. BEACH BINGO, INC. T/A PEMBROKE HALL Page 2 of 2 2. The days and hours of operation are Tuesday and Thursday from 10:30 a.m. until 1 0:30 p.m. 3. No LED I electronic display signs shall be permitted in association with the bingo hall. . Attachments: Staff Review and Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map and Summary Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Mana9R:~ k-, 05'~ REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit (Bingo Hall) ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 3600 Holland Road GPIN: 14865422830000 ELECTION DISTRICT: ROSE HALL 5 October 14, 2009 Public Hearing APPLICANT: BEACH BINGO, INC. T/A PEMBROKE HALL PROPERTY OWNER: CHIMNEY HILL CENTER VIRGINIA BEACH. VA LP STAFF PLANNER: Karen Prochilo SITE SIZE: 19.37 Acres LEASE SPACE: 11,383 SF AICUZ: Predominately in the 65- 70 dB DNL; corner of site in the Less than 65 dB DNL SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow use of a currently vacant unit in the Chimney Hill Shopping Center for an assembly use (bingo hall). The applicant is relocating its bingo hall from the location on Cleveland Street, where business was conducted for twenty years, to this shopping center. The applicant proposes to operate the facility two days per week on Tuesday and Thursday as permitted under Virginia regulations. The hours of operation will begin at 10:30 a.m. and end by 10:30 p.m. on these days. The submitted physical survey depicts a shopping center of 212,500 square feet with 1,021 parking spaces and outparcels. Access is shown from three sides of the property. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Shopping center BEACH BINGO INC. t/a PEMBROKE HALL I CHIMNEY HILL CENTER Agenda Item 5 Page 1 SURROUNDING LAND North: . USE AND ZONING: . South: . East: . . West: . . Commercial Outparcels / B-2 Community Business District Holland Road Multi-family dwellings / A-12 Apartment District South Rosemont Road Retail (Lowe's) / B-2 Community Business District Chimney Hill Parkway Retail, office, and multi-family dwellings / B-2 Community Business District, 0-2 Office District and A-18 Apartment District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The majority of the site is impervious, as it is developed with a shopping center and parking lot. There are no known significant environmental or cultural features associated with this site. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TR'(~NSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Holland Road is a four-lane divided urban minor arterial. This section of Holland Road is shown on the Master Transportation Plan Map with a 155-foot wide divided roadway section. There are no Roadway CIP projects for this segment of Holland Road. Rosemont Road is a four-lane divided urban minor arterial. This section of Rosemont Road is shown on the Master Transportation Plan Map with a 100-foot wide divided roadway section containing a bikeway. There are no Roadway CIP projects on this segment of Rosemont Road. Chimney Hill Parkway is a two-lane local street. This street does not appear on the Master Transportation Plan M dh R C f ap an as no oadwav IP proiects or it. TRAFFIC: Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Street Name Volume Holland Road 39,200 ADT' 22,800 ADT 1 (Level of Existing Land Use 'L - 58 (2008) Service "D") - ADT 27,800 ADT 1 (Level of Proposed Land Use - there Service "E") are no reliable data for S. Rosemont Road 21,900 ADT 22,800 ADT 1 (Level of bingo halls (2008) Service "D") Chimney Hill Unknown 9,900 ADT (Level of Parkway Service "D") Average Daily Trips 2 as defined bv 11,400 SF furniture store Exclusive of olltparcel driveways, the site has one full and one right-in/right-out access point on Holland Road, and one full, two right-in/right-out access points on South Rosemont Road, and two full access points on Chimney Hill Parkway. Exiting left-turns are prohibited at the full-access driveway on Holland Road. The intersections of Holland Road with Chimney Hill Parkway and Rosemont Road are both signalized. The Rosemont/Holland Roads intersection is a high-crash location and part of the City's PhotoSafe program. It is also a highly congested intersection, with volumes exceeding its capacity. BEACH BINGO INC. t/a PEMBROKE HALL / CHIMNEY HILL CENTER Agenda Item 5 Page 2 Traffic Engineering cannot fully predict the traffic impact of the proposed bingo hall due to having insufficient data to estimate trip generation for this use. However, the described operation will represent a net decrease in generated traffic during most of the week due to its limited hours of operation. The proposed use should generate no traffic during all morning peak hours, weekends, and afternoon peak hours on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Based on the stated 6:30 start time for Tuesday and Thursday evening games, it is likely that the majority of traffic for these events would also miss the afternoon peak hour on the adjacent roads. Additionally, this proposal is a single unit within an existing 212,500 square foot shopping center. Based on professional transportation methods, the Chimney Hill Shopping Center as a whole was estimated to generate 9,000-9,500 trips per day (including 500-600 peak hour trips) when fully occupied with retail. This total includes approximately 500 trips per day allocated to the subject site. Therefore, the particular site's traffic has already been accounted for as part of the entire shopping center's traffic. WATER and SEWER: This site is connected to City water and City sanitary sewer. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for this area recognize preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods. "Limited commercial or institutional activities providing desired goods or services to residential neighborhoods may be considered acceptable uses on the edge of established neighborhoods provided effective measures are taken to ensure compatibility and non-proliferation of such activities." Page 91 Evaluation: The request for a Conditional Use Permit for an assembly use (bingo hall) is acceptable. While the site will be slightly deficient in parking, the proposed use will only operate two days of the week. Section 221 (i) of the City Zoning Ordinance allows City Council to consider and approve a Conditional Use Permit with deficiencies such as off-street parking below the minimum if it is determined that the deficiencies are offset by the proposal itself or by attached conditions that ensure the proposal is compatible to the surrounding area. It is staff's conclusion that the parking deficiency will not have any impact beyond that which currently exists on the site. The use, therefore, is compatible with the existing uses in the center. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions below. CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits, inspections, and a certificate of occupancy from the Building Official of the City of Virginia Beach before a business license is issued. 2. The days of operation are Tuesday and Thursday from 10:30 a.m. until 1 0:30 p.m.. BEACH BINGO INC. Va PEMBROKE HALL / CHIMNEY HILL CENTER Agenda Item 5 Page 3 3. No LED I electronic display signs shall be permitted in association with the bingo hall. NOTE: Furthl~r conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances and Standards. Any site plan submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes and Standards. All applicable permits required by the City Code, including those administered by the Department of Planning / Development Services Center and Department of Planning / Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, iire required before any uses allowed by this Use Permit are valid. 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) conr;epts and strategies as they pertain to this site. BEACH BINGO INC. t/a PEMBROKE HALL / CHIMNEY HILL CENTER Agenda Item 5 Page 4 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION BEACH BINGO INC. t/a PEMBROKE HALL / CHIMNEY HILL CENTER Agenda Item 5 Page 5 :l ! , ! !; ~ ~ ~ t I i ~ 1 ! i~h: !> Ii lli ~ '" f ~~ ?~~ ~:. 3 ~i~;~e i~:':~a 'i g '" ~ ~ P :l o '" J, ~ ~,,~~~ :1' I 'J : I , : :1 } ~ '" Jt'" ~ l~~ ~. \' ~^!" ~"lt' '_u J. :.^ 1; ~ ~;"'! . q t-_;l' - ----- -Y; . - I L i~ : * ;l ~ ~..../"~.. -" ,.' ....--.,..,~ ,~. ROS€MONT ). ': ~.~ fl q ft ~~. ~!: l' -,..-'- '" 11) k','., ").,~l.". -- ...... ~~.' l ",-,,- ) !~-"".-;r"- i '''\ I" II ~ I Ill; L_~~_..___Jij .. SITE PLAN SHOWING LOCATION BEACH BINGO INC. t/a PEMBROKE HALL / CHIMNEY HILL CENTER Agenda Item 5 Page 6 '';'" Proposed Lease Space "~ i ,; "~, '. BEACH BINGO INC. va PEMBROKE HAll I CHIMNEY Hill CEN1ER Agenda \tem 5 Page 7 Beach Bingo, Inc. Map G-8 Mop Not to Scale tla Pembroke Hall !lttl~~ .. ~--l~~ ~'~ _=~~ lfNJi~ ;;jjr ~~~"~~. _, .~.. ,. ';;:: ~ . I" _~;~~ L ~~j ,.~ ~~ u ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~~"\"""" :0- ~~ l ."".~ iil :NlII 7/ ~ x~ y: j '/'j 'Y/V:'5/""""'" ~~ />(/x /. ~ ~ ~~'fii? VA J _~ ~.1 ~'/:/ >v CAi.lf ~ 1>> ~ '\...~ - ~12 J~~~~~~7 w~~ 3t1~"Xer~~){'J,~~ ,,~,~'J A; x'/)('/)t ~ j ~ ~~~ ~-18 \)n..,) ~ ~/~~ ~/ l }~ ~ ~ <~ A 'll~'>t'?o~U/ ~ ~:.~ ~~~ '!~N~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~vn:' ,', 1,\1 1J1:J; \. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,,~ lid;';:.. I~ ~~ '" ~~ ~ '\~ ~ \. 1'2, rl~' ......"IllddmrT1fJ.~~ .~ ,/ CUP for Assembly (Bingo Haft) 1 06/10/03 Conditional Use Permit car wash) Granted 02/2W03 Conditional Use Permit !:Ias sales & convenience store) Granted 07/0~i/88 Conditional Use Permit gas sales & car wash) Granted 04/20/81 Conditional Use Permit !:Ias sales) Granted 2 07/0tilOO Conditional Use Permit motorcycle sales & repair) Granted 3 10/11/76 Rezoning R-8 Residential to B-2 Business) Granted 4 01 /1 ~~/98 Conditional Use Permit (senior housing) Granted OS/2~l/88 Rezoning 0-2 Office to B-2 Business) Withdrawn 07/1 L/86 Rezoning 0-2 Office to A-1 Apartment) Denied 03/0~i/86 Rezoning 0-2 Office to 1-1 Industrial) Withdrawn 5 03/1 Eil85 Rezoning 0-1 Office to B-2 Business) Granted 6 06/0~~/86 Rezoning A-1 Apartment to B-2 Business) Granted 7 1 0/2~./83 Rezoning A-1 Apartment to 0-2 Office) Granted 8 08/0~./86 Rezoning A-12 Apartment to B-2 Business) Granted Conditional Use Permit automobile repair) Granted 9 04/2~"96 Conditional Use Permit automobile repair) Granted 09/26/88 Rezoning (A-12 Apartment to B-2 Business) Granted Conditional Use Permit automobile repair) Granted ZONING HISTORY BEACH BINGO INC. t/a PEMBROKE HALL / CHIMNEY HILL CENTER Agenda Item 5 Page 8 \~~LOSURE STATE~E~T __~_,.__ APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnershIp, hrrn, business, or other unincorporated organization complete the foBowing' 1, List the applicant name fOllowed by the names of all officers members trustees, partners etc, below: (Attach list if necessary) Beach Bmgo Ino,: Sheldon E. Blum, President: Marcie L. Btum Secretary/Treasurer 2, List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary or affiliated business entiti relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessafY) ----... -..-----'~.._-~_.~._~,-_______._.__._...__~___.~..._._.__~__.__ '.'_'''W''.w,~''__,., _'_"~" _'~"~_'__ o Check here If the applicant is NOT a corporation partnersh 0, firm business, or other unincorporated organization PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only If property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following 1, Ust the property owner name followed by the names of an offIcers, members trustees. partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) Chimney Hill Center Virginia Beach, Va, Limited Partnership, a Delaware limrted , partnerShtp: Malcolm Glazer Limited Partner; Virginia Beach Center Corporation, Genera! Partner MalCOlm Glazer President Secretary, Treasurer, Sole Director William Sondencker, Vice PreSident, Assistant Secretary 2, list all businesses that have a parent-subsJdiary1 or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant: (Attach fist if necessary} -'-'~'-"'~'--'--~'_''''''_~'~~'____''__~'mm_'''_____",,,__w'...._w.._y__,___....._.._~~^ ~-___"_,._"_._v._.__.,.",__~_,___.~~,..~..__ ____...__w,,,' "_~"W ^~__...._..._~_~~,__.._..__~__...m ....,...._,_"_,_~_........__,,.~ .~--~_._____.._._.________~_,__'"~ _,._.~.w._____.._____.___'___._.___~....._._~~___~.___.~._..~~ _~ ._. _....._ .,,_._~_._.__..._._..~._~___ o Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation partnership firm busmess, or other unincorporated organization, ~-'?f----_.~ .. ........_.._-_..~--_....._._ ,~ ~~ See next P8SO (Ot footnotes z o f I ~ U t . ~ ~I ~ f-c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o t I f-c I I ~ Z o u BEACH BINGO INC. t/a PEMBROKE HALL / CHIMNEY HILL CENTER Agenda Item 5 Page 9 z o I I ~ U I I .....:I ~1 ~ f--4 ~ ~ o. ~ ~ p ~ <=> I I f--4 I I ~ Z o c: :) DISCLOSURE 8T A TEMENT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List aU known contractors or businesses that have or 'NIH provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to tM providers of architectural services, real estate services, financial services, accounting services and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P,C. Daughtery & Associates Architecture Baldwin & Gregg ltd, "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means 'a relationship that eXists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation" See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va, Code S 2,2-3101 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means 'a relationship other than parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity Oil 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. f 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 heanng according to the instructions In thiS package. Beach Bingo, !nc By. ' s Marcie L Blum, Secretary Pnl1 Name ':::';} nne~/ VirgJnia BC1('t1, V,;, r '~ ,-- ,. ~~ . :13r" s ~:{}r(H.(1!'a Us-e P~ftt:it A~<p: r,ta9ll;~ :, R{~." $~){j fl,2Cu4 BEACH BINGO INC. t/a PEMBROKE HALL / CHIMNEY HILL CENTER Agenda Item 5 Page 10 Item #5 Beach Bingo, Inc. t/a Pembroke Hall Conditional Use Permit 3600 Holland Road, Suite 809 District 3 Rose Hall October 14, 2009 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next matter is agenda item 5, an application of Beach Bingo, Inc. tla Pembroke Hall for a Conditional Use Permit for an assemble use/bingo hall on property located at 3600 Holland Road, Suite 809, District 3, Rose Hall with three (3) conditions. Eddie Bourdon: Again, for the record Madame Chair, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing Beach Bingo, Inc. The owner is also here this afternoon. We appreciate being on the consent agenda. All three conditions are acceptable. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Joseph Strange: Okay. Thank you Eddie. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Is there are any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? If not, the Chair has asked Gene Crabtree to review this matter. Eugene Crabtree: This is actually the moving of a bingo hall off of Cleveland Street that has been there for some time operating. It has relatively no problems whatsoever, and was very successful. But they are moving now to a shopping center that has an empty space in it. It is the old Cost Plus warehouse. Their retail outlet that is empty in Chimney Hill. There is plenty of parking there. There is a lot of space for it. They will only operate two days a week. They will operate from 10:30 am to 10:30 pm on Tuesday and Thursday. The staffhas recommended a favorable approval of this. It does fit with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore we have put it on the consent agenda. Joseph Strange: Thank you Gene. Madame Chair, I make a motion to approve agenda item 5. Janice Anderson: We have a motion by Joe Strange. Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Janice Anderson: A second by Gene Crabtree. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 2 ANDERSON BERNAS AYE ABSENT Item #5 Beach Bingo, Inc, t/a Pembroke Hall Page 2 CRABTREE HENLEY HORSLEY KATSIAS LIV AS REDMOND RIPLEY RUSSO STRANGE AYE AYE AYE ABSENT AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of9-0, the Board has approved agenda item 5 for consent. ~',#:, ',' I' f' .., "'- ~2 ':,Ijll( ,,~.~ t ~ }>~. ,r-: " .---.~\~,.~'>~"<~"'~,~ ~~: ~:-.. ";~. ' \ < Ii ';"f," t 'II" "'" '.'l 4<~\;fr/~'zt.~;~: ~~ '_":. :..' "I :'i ), ';. * ~ " ,. '.. , . " ....... _'..i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution Approving the Location of an Existing Mobile Home at 2348 Vaughan Road (GPIN 2401-28-7374) Consistent With Section 19-19(b) of the City Code. PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: The applicants, Robert and Karen Vaughan, have submitted plans to the Development Services Center for the construction of a single-family home on a 30.86-acre parcel located at 2348 Vaughan Road. The location of the proposed dwelling is at the northernmost point of the parcel, adjacent to a tributary of West Neck Creek and at the end of an existing private lane that extends from the end of Vaughan Road. The property is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. At the southernmost point of the parcel, fronting on Vaughan Road, is a mobile home that has been situated at that location for more than 40 years. The mobile home is located approximately 1,800 feet from the site of the new single-family home. The mobile home has been used in the past to house farm laborers. It is currently occupied by Mr. Vaughan's son. The structure has been the only dwelling on the parcel, but with the construction of a new single-family dwelling at another location on the same parcel, the mobile home will be subject to the regulations of Section 19-19 of the City Code. Section 19-19 allows a mobile home in Agricultural Districts to be located on the same parcel with a single-family home if the location of the mobile home meets several standards specified in Section 19-19(a), a copy of which is attached to this report. . Considerations: One of the standards specified in Section 19-19 requires that the mobile home be located to the rear or side of the principal residential structure. In this instance, due to the configuration of the lot and the existing location of the mobile home, this standard cannot be met, as the mobile home is located in the front of the new single-family dwelling. ROBERT AND I<AREN VAUGHAN Page 2 of 9 The applicant, therefore, as provided for by Section 19-19(b) of the City Code, is requesting that the City Council allow the mobile home to remain in its current location, Letters were sent to the adjacent property owners summarizing the request, notifyin9 them of the date of City Council's review of this request, and providing an opportunity for them to comment on the proposal. One letter of support was submittE!d, a copy of which is attached to this report. . Recommendations: The mobile home has been situated at this location for more than 40 years. The new sin9le-family home will be located approximately 1,800 feet to the north of the mobile home, and while both structures will be on the same parcel, it will appear CiS though they are on separate lots. Staff finds that the continued existeno9 of the mobile home at its current location is compatible to the surrounding area, and thus, approval of the resolution authorizing the mobile home to be located on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is recom mended. . Attachments: Section 19-19 of the City Code Applicants Application Letter Aerial Photographs of Site Site SUrvHY Letter of Support Resolutioll Recommended Action: Approval Submitting DepClrtmentlAgency: Planning Department City Manage~~ lL. ~b<>'l. 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOCATION OF AN 2 EXISTING MOBILE HOME AT 2348 VAUGHAN ROAD 3 (PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT) 4 5 6 WHEREAS, Robert and Karen Vaughan (the "Applicants") are the owners of a 7 30.86 - acre parcel of property located at 2348 Vaughan Road (the "Property"), in the 8 Princess Anne District; and 9 10 WHEREAS, there is a freestanding mobile home located on the Property, which 11 mobile home was placed on the Property approximately forty (40) years ago, prior to the 12 date on which approval of the Department of Public Works pursuant to City Code 13 Section 19-19 was required for freestanding mobile homes in Agricultural Districts; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the said mobile home is currently the only structure on the Property, 16 and is currently occupied by a member of the Applicants' immediate family; and 17 18 WHEREAS, the Applicants desire to construct a new single-family dwelling on 19 the Property, at a distance of approximately one thousand, eight hundred (1,800) feet 20 from the freestanding mobile home; and 21 22 WHEREAS, City Code Section 19-19 provides that the City Council may, by 23 resolution, allow the continuation of an existing freestanding mobile home if the 24 circumstances under which the original approval took place change, provided that the 25 City Council finds that the mobile home is compatible with surrounding land use; and 26 27 WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the mobile home is compatible 28 with surrounding land use and that the construction of the Applicants' proposed single- 29 family dwelling constitutes a change in circumstances within the meaning of City Code 30 Section 19-19; 31 32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 33 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 34 35 That the City Council hereby approves the continuation of the freestanding 36 mobile home located at 2348 Vaughan Road, in the Princess Anne District, upon the 37 condition that the said mobile home be occupied by a member of the immediate family 38 of the Applicants or of the immediate family of the Applicants' successors-in-interest to 39 the Property. 40 41 42 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 43 day of November, 2009. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: CA11319 R-1 November 3, 2009 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: I '~ fIk /;W .i{) ../ .. City Attorney's 0 Ice 2 GALLUP SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, LTD. September 17, 2009 Mrs. Karen Lasley Zoning Administrator Municipal Center Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Re: Single Family Site Plan for Robert & Karen Vaughan, 30.86 Acre Parcel, Vaughan Road, Instrument No. 200501190008921 (plat): GPIN: 2401-28-7374 _ ~ Mrl;. ~Je.Y., _ Mr. & Mrs. Vaughan wish to build a single-family home for themselves on this property. The property is-located at the western termmus' of Vaughan Road. A copy of the site plan is included for your review. Please note that a freestanding mobile home ~xists near the eastern boundary of the property. The new house will be approximately 1750 feet from the mobile home. The mobile home is located in "front" of the proposed home. The location of the mobile home with respect to the new house will not be in compliance with Sect 19-19(a)(1) of the City Code, which requires the mobile home to be located to the side or rear of the principal residence. The mobile home has been located on this property for approximately 40 years. In past years, it has housed fann laborers. It is currently occupied by Mr. Vaughan's son. I am writing to you to request that City Council consider approving a resolution. in compliance with Sect. 19-19(b), to allow the continuation of the existing freestanding mobile home and the construction of a new single-family home on this property. I am including the following documents for your use in the request: 1.) One full-size copy of the site plan. 2.) One 8 W' x II" reduction of site plan. 3.) Letter from Paul Phillips, dated 8120/09, disapproving the construction of new home because of the mobile home. 4.) Copy of Sect 19-19 of City Code provided by Mr. Phillips. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or if I may be of further assistance. Sincerely, GALLUP SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, LTD. t5M.ta ~.~ Broce W. Gallup, P.E., L.S. cc: Bobby Vaughan 323 First Colonial Road · Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454-4605 Phone (757)428-8132. Fax (757)425-2390 Sec. 19-19. locatkm in agricultural districts. (a) A permit 1:0 allow one (1) freestaAding mobile home may be approved by the department of public works in any area zoned agricultural district, provided the following conditions are complied with: (1) The mobile home is located to the rear or side and on the same lot or parcel with a principal residential buifdin!J and all dimensional requirements for two (2) dwellings are complied with and the required yards or open space of the principal dwelling are not encroached upon. (2) Ttle mobile home is not located within four hundred (400) feet of any other residence existing at the time application is made to locate the mobile home. (3) Ttle immediately adjoining property owners and those directly across the fronting street shall be notified by the del>artment of public works of the receipt of an application to place a mobile home. Such notice shall be mailed at least fifteen (15) days prior to the issuance of a permit by the department of public works. The address to which such notice shall be sent by the department of planning shall be that as shown on the tax records of the city. (4) The department of public works shall not issue a permit to locate a freestanding mobile home until the methocl of sewage disposal for such mobile home is approved by the department of public health. (5) A freestanding mobile home authorized under the terms of this section shall not be occupied by anyone not a member of the immediate family resident in the principal dwelling on the lot or parcel and such mobile home shall not be I)ccupied by more than one (1) family. For the purpose of this section, a member of the immediate family is defined as any person who is a natural or legally adopted child, grandchild or spouse or parent of the owner. (6) Th~ department of planning shall, upon written receipt of an objection from persons set forth in (3) above to the plac.ement of a freestanding mobile home, refer the application to the city council for approval or disapprovaL If no obje:tion is received by the department of public works, it shall be authorized to issue the freestanding mobile home permit at the expiration of the notification period. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) hereof, the city council may, by resolution. allow the continuation of an existing freestanding mobile home if the circumstances under which the original approval took place change, provided the council finds the mobile home to be compatible with surrounding land use. In the resolution permitting such continuation, the city council may attach conditions and safeguards to its approval as it deems necessary to assure such compatibility. (c) A temporary special permit may be issued by the department of public works for a period not to exceed nine (9) months in a cclse where a single-family dwelling has been destroyed or damaged by fire or other disaster to an extent which makes s'Jch dwelling uninhabitable and only where such dwelling is to be rebuilt or repaired. (Code 1965, ~ 35-4; Ord. No. 1006, 11-19-79; Ord. No. 1822, 12-5-88; Ord. No. 2112, 2-4-92; Ord. No_ 2148, 6-23-92) ... \ ~Ii ltl!il Iii "ad in' la' II I hX!1 Iii tp@ Ilell illU I I .~dt i ,1~II.t -i', "<<+ '~I..l ial::lt I - - ,....:. <.....~ }.'1~ & I~.i& i ,. j~ .I~ I~ ~~ I: I~ ~: I~ c ~ t ~ ! \~ " "''''. ' ..,...~~<._~.: .-/ " ir.'G-. ~;~~~ ..~ c. ,,,", \ " .' z ... g 1w, ;; I ,,", = ~ :l c. 9" 20' LAl'o;r ff , ~.~ ~~ . w x '" :0: n. b Sd i Existing Mobile Home 3 .z:' ~ '" ;, ;, ~ ~; ":r ~ cr~ @ ,1:~ ~ ~ Milicary Aviation Museum. 1341 Princess Anne Road. VUginiaBeach, VA 23457. Phone: (7S7) 721-7767 _'Il:MililalJ'AviationMuseum.org October 19,2009 Stephen J. White, Ph.D., AICP Chief Planner Department of Planning 2405 Courthouse Dr., Room 115 Virginia Beach, V A 23456-9040 RE: 2348 Vaughan Road Dear Mr. White, We arc in receipt of your notice concerning the request of the City Council to grant permission for the continued existence of a free-standing mobile home on the property of GPIN 2401-28-7374 and also the construction of an additional future single-family dwelling. OUf property is adjacent to this existing lot with the mobile home. Wc would like to inform you that we have no objection to the construction of an additional home to be built on this lot. We feel it to be a benefit to the neighborhood and encourage the City Council to approve this request. CorpolBle Offices. 4455 South Boulevard. Vugitlia Beach, VA 23452 Phone: (7S7)490-31S7. Fax: (757) 497-8083 ".~-,.,...... r~:;'?~--:~"'.~~(;,;:~" ~:r' ~+'W~ \~~:::"1::,,~;f! .......- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance - Political Campaign Signs MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: An Ordinance to amend Section 211 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to political campaign signs. . Considerations: The proposed amendments delete the provision within the Zoning Ordinance that places time limitations on political campaign signs. This deletion of durational limits for political campaign signs is the result of a United States District Court decision, which held that such limits on campaign signs posted on private property are unconstitutional. There were no objections to this amendment. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to recommend approval to the City Council. . Attachments: Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager~l. ~\""'t. 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 211 2 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE 3 PERTAINING TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGN 4 SIGNS 5 6 Section Amended: ~ 211 7 8 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning 9 practice so require; 10 11 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 12 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 13 14 That SeGtion 211 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained to read as 15 follows: 16 17 APPENDIX A ZONING ORDINANCE 18 19 20 ARTICLE 2. IGENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO 21 ALL DISTRICTS. 22 23 24 B. SIGN REGULATIONS 25 26 27 Sec. 211. Signs permitted in all districts. 28 29 The following types of signs are exempted from all of the provisions of this 30 ordinance, except for illumination, construction, and safety regulations and the following 31 standards: 32 33 (a) Public signs. Signs of a noncommercial nature and in the interest of, 34 erected by or on the order of, a public officer in the performance of his 35 public duty, such as directional signs, regulatory signs, warning signs, and 36 in-formational signs. 37 38 39 (e) Political campaign signs. Signs announcing candidates seeking public 40 political office and other data pertinent thereto shall be permitted up to a 41 total area of eight (8) square feet for each premises in a residential zone 42 and thirty-two (32) square feet in a commercial or industrial zone. These 43 Such signs shall be confined within private property and shall not 44 encroach into the visibility triangle at street intersections. These signs m3Y 45 Ge~ displayed sixty (60) days prior to 3nd seven (7) days 3fter the election 46 fer 'J.'hich intended. In cases where 3 final election follo'::s a primary 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 election, those c::mdid;)tes who 'Non in the primary election may continue to displ::lY their signs during the interim period and up to seven (7) days ;)fter the final election. (h) Commercial signs used for political campaign advertising. Commercial signs may be used for political campaign advertising.:,... sixty (60) days prior to ;)nd seven (7) days after the election for which intended. In cases where a final election follows;) prim;)ry election, those c;)ndid;)tes who ':Ion in the prim;)ry election may continue to display their signs during the intorim period and up to seven (7) d;)ys ;)fter the fin;)1 election. The political campaign advertisement shall encompass the entire surface area upon which it is placed. The advertisement shall be secured to the commercial sign in a manner acceptable to the department of permits and inspections. COMMENT These amendments delete the provision regarding time limitations for political campaign signs. The deletion of durationallimits for political campaign signs is the result of a U. S. District Court decision which held that such limits on signs posted on private property are unconstitutional. of Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIl;NCY: ( 1/ l' ,}. IJ l i .'// /1/\; I. t.; / I( " II I 9'v, Ii) (~I ,r V h1 /b 41 / 'V,)'W;Vr /. i ~ City Attorney's Office CA11261 R-5 September 2, 2009 Item #17 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend Section 211 of the City Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to political campaign signs October 14,2009 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next matter is agenda item 17. It's an ordinance to amend Section 211 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to political campaign signs. Kay Wilson: Number 17 is an amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance, that would pertain to political campaign signs. This will get rid of the requirement that the signs can only be placed at certain times. Any time limitations will be deleted in this ordinance, and that is a requirement that comes down to us from the United States District Court. This does not appear to have any opposition, and we would ask that it would be passed. Joseph Strange: Thank you Kay. Is there any opposition to this matter being placed on the consent agenda? Bill Macali: Madame Chair, can I just add one small thing? Janice Anderson: Yes. Please. Bill Macali: I would like the record to show that regarding the political campaign sign ordinance that neither the Planning Department nor the City Attorney's Office would be bringing this ordinance forward for your consideration but for the fact that as a matter of constitutional law, we really have to do so. There really wasn't any alternative even in terms of extending the time that these signs could be located on the property. We reviewed these cases very carefully, and this is really the only lawful alternative to it, so I just wanted people to be aware of that. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Macali. Joseph Strange: Madame Chair, I make a motion to approve agenda item 17. Janice Anderson: Vve have a motion by Joe Strange. Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Janice Anderson: A second by Gene Crabtree. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 2 ANDERSON BERNAS CRABTREE AYE ABSENT AYE Item #17 City of Virginia Beach - Political Campaign Signs Page 2 HENLEY HORSLEY KA TSIAS LIV AS REDMOND RIPLEY RUSSO STRANGE AYE AYE ABSENT AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the Board has approved agenda item 17 for consent. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance - Front Porches MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 __._.'..______.________..______.__......________..._...___.____4~_________.'__.______.________'______...____---,.----.--..-"~'--.~-. ---'-'-" . Background: An Ordinance to amend Section 201 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to setbacks for front porches in the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 Residential zoning districts. . Considerations: The proposed amendments add a new sub-section 6.1 to Section 201 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing regulations for covered porches greater than 6 feet by 12 feet that are located within the required front yard. Currently, covered, unenclosed front porches on single-family or duplex dwellings can extend into a required front yard setback if they do not exceed 6 feet by 12 feet and the setback from the lot line is less than five feet. Based on concerns expressed by homeowners who have requested larger porches from and been denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals, City Council members Rosemary Wilson and Barbara Henley requested the attached amendment. The amendment provides that porches larger than 6 feet by 12 feet located within a required front yard must have a setback of at least 20 feet. The amendment applies only to the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 Residential zoning districts. There were no objections to this amendment. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to recommend approval to the City Council. . Attachments: Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes _...__..._..._._.__..,,__......._ _ __. .."'__~_._____._,_~_,_ ~__ ____._._".___.r.__._.___" ...._.._._._..._.._____.___.__._._...______.___ ~._--_.--_._-~- _.- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - FRONT PORCH AMENDMENT Page 2 of 2 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City ManagerC~<:'~ . ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBERS ROSEMARY WILSON AND BARBARA HENLEY AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 201 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS FOR FRONT PORCHES IN THE R-7.5, R-10 AND R-15 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Section Amended: 9201 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 9201 of the City Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 201. Yards. (a) General. All required yards shall be unobstructed by any structure or other improvement which exceeds sixteen (16) inches in height as measured from ground elevation; provided, however, the following improvements may be located in a yard: (6) Covered, unenclosed front porches on single-family or duplex structures constructed prior to the effective date of this ordinance, may extend into tAe 9. required front yard setback, provided, however, that: a. Except as allowed in subdivision (6.1 ). such porches shall have a maximum depth of six (6) feet, as measured from the exterior wall of the main structure to the exterior edge of the porch foundation and a maximum width of twelve (12) feet; and b. in no case shall the setback from the nearest lot line to the exterior wall of the porch foundation be less than five (5) feet~ (6.1) In the R-7.5. R-10 and R-15 Residential ZoninQ Districts. the minimum front yard setback for covered, unenclosed front porches havinQ a 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 rnaximum depth areater than six (6) feet or a maximum width qreater than !welve (12) feet shall be twenty (20) feet; and (7) Handicapped ramps, to the extent necessary to perform their proper function. In addition, certain other structures, uses or accessories may be prohibited in certain yards as set forth in the applicable district regulations. COMMENT The amendments add a new subdivision (6.1), providing that the required front-yard setback for pon:hes larger than 12' x 6' in the R-7.5, R-15 or R-20 Zoning District is twenty (20) feet. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the ,2009. day of APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: {(j~ M .N~ City Attorney's Office CA11262 R-5 September 11,20::>9 Item #18 City of Virginia Beach An Ordinance to amend Section 201 of the City Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to setbacks for porches in the R-7.5, R-l 0, and R-15 Residential Zoning District October 14, 2009 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next matter is agenda item 18. An Ordinance to amend to Section 201 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to front porches in the R-7.5, R-l 0 and R-15 Residential Zoning Districts. Kay Wilson; Number 18 is an amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance that was recommended by Council Members Henley and Wilson. It is an amendment for front porches. It will allow front porches in the R-7.5, R-I0, and R-15 zoning districts to be as large as they would like to be, as long as they can meet a 20 foot front yard setback. It does not appear to have any opposition and we would ask that it would be passed. Joseph Strange: Thank you Kay. Is there any opposition to these matters being placed on the consent agenda? Madame Chair, I make a motion to approve agenda item 18. Janice Anderson: We have a motion by Joe Strange. Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Janice Anderson: A second by Gene Crabtree. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABSO ANDERSON AYE BERNAS CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS LIV AS AYE REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE ABSENT 2 ABSENT ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the Board has approved agenda item 18 for consent. \., ~... ~,.:;.] '~(:::~.'C.:~:.;' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to amend Sections 203, 900, 901, 902 and 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area. MEETING DATE: November 10,2009 . Background: With the adoption of the Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan and the repeal of the Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan, the Zoning Ordinance requires amendment to ensure that the correct plan document is referenced. . Considerations: There are six locations in the Zoning Ordinance where reference is made to the Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan. Each of those references must be replaced with a reference to the Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan. The attached amendments are considered 'housekeeping' in nature, as they ensure the Zoning Ordinance refers to the correct planning document for Strategic Growth Area 4 - Pembroke. There were no objections to these amendments. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda, passing a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to recommend approval to the City Council. . Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department l.C3~ 15 October 14,2009 Public Hearing CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AMENDMENTS TO CITY ZONING ORDINANCE - PEMBROKE SGA 4 PLAN REQUEST: An Ordinance to amend Sections 203, 900, 901, 902 and 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT With the adoption of the Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan and the repeal of the Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan, the Zoning Ordinance requires amendment to ensure that the correct plan document is referenced. There are six locations in the Zoning Ordinance where reference is made to the Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan. Each of those references must be replaced with a reference to the Pembroke Strategic Gro,^1h Area 4 Implementation Plan. RECOMMENDA TION The attached clmendments are considered 'housekeeping' in nature, as they ensure the Zoning Ordinance refers to the correct planning document for Strategic Growth Area 4 - Pembroke. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the amendments. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - SGA 4 ZONING ORDINANCE Agenda Item 15 Page 1 Item # 14 & 15 An ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by repealing the Provisions within the Policy Document pertaining to the Virginia Central Business District Master Plan, adding provisions to the Policy Document pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area, adopting the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area by reference, and repealing the 1991 Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan with Exhibits 1 and Exhibits 1.1. An ordinance to amend Section 203,900,901,902, & 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area October 14,2009 CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next items are 14 & 15. An ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan by repealing the provisions within the Policy Document pertaining to the Virginia Central Business District Master Plan, adding provisions to the Policy Document pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area, adopting the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area by reference, and repealing the 1991 Virginia Beach Central Business District Master Plan with Exhibits 1 and Exhibits 1. . An ordinance to amend Section 203,900,901,902, & 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan-Pembroke Area. Tom Pauls: Madame Chair and Planning Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be here. Very briefly, I just want to say that this ten month process had an incredible amount of input, and the effort towards where we are today. The steering committee did an amazing job. I want to recognize David Redmond and Ron Ripley, as Planning Commissioners on the steering committee, who also helped us measurably during this process. This plan will provide land use, transportation, environment, open space, parks, urban design, and guidelines for form-based codes, among other things. I think it is a really good foundation and a very good document from which we can begin to implement the planning policies cited in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The project team included the CMSS Architects, Kimley-Hom, De1cino Miles, and I want to recognize Cynthia Whitbread-Spanoulis from the Department of Economic Development, because she contributed an incredible amount of work to make this the success I hope it will be. So, with that, I thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Joseph Strange: Thank you Tom. Is there any opposition to these matters being placed on the consent agenda? Madame Chair, I make a motion to approve agenda items 14 & 15. Janice Anderson: We have a motion by Joe Strange. Item #14 & 15 City of Virginia Beach - Implementation Plan Page 2 Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Janice Anderse,n: A second by Gene Crabtree. Ronald Ripley: Madame Chair? Janice Anderson: Yes. Ronald Ripley: May I make a comment if you don't mind? Janice Anderson: Regarding item 14. One of the new amendments that Tom Pauls handed out dealt with transportation considerations in the future. And he talked about following further traffic analysis as part ofthe Transportation Improvement Program, identify appropriate roadway segments to rectice traffic speed consistent with planning principles in this plan. I just want it on the record to state that this segment that we we're talking about, because this is a general statement that refers to the entire planning district which is good. But what prompted this, and I just want it on the record, that we we're talking about specifically looking at speed limits right in the immediate Town Center area on Virginia Beach Boulevard, hopefully looking to reduce that to 35 mph. That is in keeping with the recommendation of the Central Business District Association. I would just like to have that on the record. I mentioned to Tom that I would bring this up, and so noted. Janice Anderso:1: Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Go ahead. David Redmond: While we're at it, one other quick comment, which I know Mr. Ripley shares because we're c,oing this by consent very quickly. I just want to thank Burrell Saunders and his team from CMSS, Tom Pauls and the entire Planning staff, the Pembroke SGA 4 Implementation Plan. It is as good of a work product I've seen. It's probably as good a work product that we could find. It is an extraordinary plan. It was a terrific process. It is no great surprise that we got something that good, given how the process was planned and implemented. So, I'm very proud of that effort Tom, Burrell, all you guys did just a fantastic job. It is by no means farfetched either. I think moving towards this, you know, something with an awful lot of thought as opposed to kind of a half-hazard way of developing. It is really an advance for this community. I think it is something we all can be proud of. So thank you all. Janice Anderson: Thank you for those comments Dave. Are we ready for the vote? Bill Macali: Madame Chair, the vote on the SGA plan will include the amendments provided to the Commission from Mr. Pauls, as well as this new one. Janice Anderson: That's correct. Item #14 & 15 City of Virginia Beach - Implementation Plan Page 3 Bill Maca1i: For the record. Janice Anderson: Yes. Thank you. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABSO ABSENT 2 ANDERSON AYE BERNAS CRABTREE AYE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KA TSIAS LIV AS AYE REDMOND AYE RIPLEY AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE ABSENT ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the Board has approved agenda items 14 & 15 for consent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 203, 900, 901, n02 AND 905 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE PEMBROKE STRATEGIC GROWTH AREA 4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. Sections Amended: 99203, 900,901,902, and 905 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Se~ctions 203, 900, 901, 902, and 905 of the City Zoning Ordinance are hereby amendl~d and reordained to read as follows: ARTICLE 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO ALL DISTRICrS Sec. 203. Off-street parking requirements. (i) Public parking in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core and B-4C Central Business Mixed Use Districts. (3) Public Parking, B The extent to which the proposed use conforms to the Urban Design Plan component of the Virginia Beach Central Business District M3ster Pbn Pembroke StrateQic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan if such proposed use is within the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District or, if the proposed use is within the B-4C Central Business Mixed Use District, the extent to which it conforms to the Mixed Use Development Guidelines; and ARTICLE 9. BUSINESS DISTRICTS. Sec. 900. Legislative Intent. The purpose of the B-1 Neighborhood Business District is to provide areas where a limited rangH of business establishments can be located near or adjacent to residential development without adversely impacting the adjacent residential area. . . , 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 The B-3A district is intended to comprise publicly accessible community open space areas, generally reflective of the concepts identified in the city's Comprehensive Plan and the Pembroke Central Business District Master Plan Pembroke Strateqic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan. Sec. 901. Use regulations. (a 1) Outdoor cafes and outdoor plazas in the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District. (a) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this ordinance, outdoor cafes within the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District shall not occupy more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of area outside of an enclosed building. (b) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this subsection, outdoor plazas within the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District shall be subject to the following criteria: (1) Outdoor plazas should be located at the entrance to major buildings and other appropriate areas to provide safe, attractive and accessible public urban open spaces for those who live, work and visit the area. The size and configuration of outdoor plazas and attendant amenities shall be reviewed by the Planning Director to ensure conformance with these and other related objectives as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Pembroke Central Business District Master Plan Pembroke Strateqic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan; and (2) The architectural design shall conform to the purpose and intent of the Central Business District Master Plan Pembroke Strateqic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan. Sec. 902. Dimensional Requirements. (f) Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (a), the Planning Director may allow a reduced front yard setback on any zoning lot within the B-3 Central Business District directly opposite property located within the B-3A Central Business Core District, and separated from such property by a public right-of way having a width of no less than one hundred (100) feet under the following circumstances: (1) The zoning lot is at least five (5) acres in area; 2 92 93 (2) The proposed development for which the reduced setback is sought is of a 94 type and quality consistent with the standards set forth in the 95 Comprehensive Plan and Pembroke Central Business District Master Plan 96 Pembroke Strategic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan; and 97 98 (3) The proposed development does not include any buildings or parcels 99 which are not visually and functionally integrated into the entire 100 development. 101 102 Sec. 905. Sig n regulations. 103 104 105 (d) VI/ithin the B-3A Pembroke Central Business Core District and the B-4C 106 Central Business Mixed Use District, signs shall be permitted as follows: 107 108 109 (4) All freestanding signs shall be approved by the City Council, as consistent 110 with the general purpose and intent of the design provisions presented in 111 the July, 1991, Pembroke Central Business District Master Plan Pembroke 112 ~trateoic Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan and any applicable design 113 sl:andards approved by city council. 114 115 COMMENT 116 117 The changes to these sections of the City Zoning Ordinance are necessitated by the deletion 118 of the Pembroke Central Business District Master Plan and the addition of the Pembroke Strategic 119 Growth Area 4 Implementation Plan. 120 121 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this 122 day of ,2009. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: \ I -- APP~OVED AS TO LEGAL SUF71C NCY: lfiJ cl)~ fYJ ~1V(u - City Attorney's Office CA11267 R-2 September 15, 2009 3 NEW FIIRST COLONIAL ASSOCIATES Relevant Information: · Kempsville District · The Cilpplicant proposes to rezone the existing R-15 Residential to Conditional 0-1 Office and develop the site with a one-story office building, 26 parking spaces, and landscaping. · The rear of the proposed building runs parallel to the side property line adjacent to the residential lot to the east. · A 15-foot wide landscaped area with a six-foot high fence provides a buffer between the rear of the building and the residential lot. Evaluation and Recommendation: · Planning Staff recommended denial · Planning Commission recommends approval (6-4-1) · TherE! was opposition. ..::\:OA.it,;,,,,... rS~~">:"'<:"'I':t, ~::~~:!.) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: NEW FIRST COLONIAL ASSOCIATES, Change of Zoning District Classification, R-15 Residential District to Conditional 0-1 Office District, 5315 Bonneydale Road. KEMPSVillE DISTRICT MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: The applicants propose to change the zoning for a 21,500 square foot parcel from R-15 Residential to Conditional 0~1 Office. A single-family house currently occupies the site. The purpose of the zoning change is to construct a 3,600 square foot office building that will provide expansion area for an orthodontic practice located on a parcel zoned 0-2 Office to the west of the subject parcel. This item was deferred by the City Council on October 27. . Considerations: The submitted concept plan shows a proposed one-story office building situated 30 feet from the front property line parallel to Bonneydale Road, 15 feet from the side property line (adjacent to a residential dwelling to the east), and 68 feet from the rear property line. The conceptual plan also shows landscaping along the front of the site and within a 15-foot wide buffer adjacent to the residential dwelling to the east. A fence is also proposed within the buffer, five feet from the property line, with evergreen shrubs along the outside of the fence. On the inside of the fence the applicant proposes evergreen trees. Twenty~six (26) parking spaces are depicted on the plan. The proposed exterior building materials for the one-story building are red brick and light gray siding. The roof is to be constructed of charcoal gray asphalt shingles. The proposed trim and decorative panels are Williamsburg Gray. The narrowest portion of the building is parallel to Bonneydale Road and is in line with the adjacent residential structure. Staff concludes that good architectural and site designs are not acceptable substitutes for good land use planning. The focus must be on applying sound land use planning practices first, and then addressing design considerations. This area, particularly on the east side of Kempsville Road, is a stable residential neighborhood. The proposed use is not compatible with the stable residential area adjacent to the site. The activity and overall character of the proposed use NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES Page 2 of 2 would encourage continued efforts to strip non-residential development into the neighborhood and would encourage future rezonings introducing additional incompatible uses in this established neighborhood. Moreover, staff finds that there is available vacant commercial space in the immediate area, providing opportunities for larger floor area that can meet the applicant's needs for expansion. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of the request. There was opposition to this request. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 6-4 with 1 abstention to approve this request as proffered. . Attachments: Staff Review and Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map and Summary Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department;( ~ City M.n.ge:f::~ )L · ~~ . V 12 September 9, 2009 Public Hearing APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIA TES, L.L.C. STAFF PLANNER: Faith Christie REQUEST: Conditional Chanqe of Zoninq (R-15 Residential to Conditional 0-1 Office) ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: 5315 Bonneydale Road GPIN: 14654920690000 ELECTION DISTRICT: #2 KEMPSVILLE SITE SIZE: 21,500 square feet AICUZ: Less than 65 dB DNL SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to rezone the existing R-15 Residential to Conditional 0-1 Office and develop the site with an office building, associated parking, and landscaping. The submitted concept plan depicts a proposed one-story office building situated 30 feet from the front property line, 15 feet from the side property line adjacent to the residential dwelling, and 68 feet from the rear property line. The conceptual plan also depicts landscaping along the front of the site and adjacent to the residential dwelling to the east. The proposed landscape buffer adjacent to the residential lot to the east is 15 feet in width. In the 15 foot buffer, a fence is proposed five feet from the property line with evergreen shrubs along the outside of the fence. On the inside of the fence the applicant proposes evergreen trees. Twenty-six (26) parking spaces are depicted on the plan. The submitted conceptual elevation plan depicts a proposed one-story building to be constructed of red brick and light gray siding. The roof is to be constructed of charcoal gray asphalt shingles. The proposed trim and decorative panels are Williamsburg Gray. The proposed 35-foot width of the building fronts on NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 12 Page 1 Bonneydale Hoad and is in line with the adjacent residential structure. The conceptual elevation plan also depicts a fournfoot high solid fence that graduates to six feet in height along the eastern property line adjacent to thl3 residential structure. Evergreen shrubs and trees are depicted adjacent to the fence. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING lAND USE: Single-family dwelling SURROUNDING lAND USE AND ZOINING: North: · Bonneydale Road · Across Bonneydale Road are single-family dwellings / R-15 Residential · Offices / Conditional B-1 Business · Single-family dwelling / R-15 Residential . Office / 0-2 Office South: East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: There do not appear to be any significant natural resources or cultural features associated with the site. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN CMTP) I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CCIP): Bonneydale Road in front of this application is a two-lane undivided collector street. No Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects are slated for this roadway. Kempsville Road in the vicinity of this application is a four-lane divided minor urban arterial. The Master Transportation Plan proposes a divided roadway with a bikeway within a 150-foot right-of-way. A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project is slated in the vicinity of this site. Indian River Road (CIP 2.011) includes construction of an eight-lane divided highway within a 190-foot right-of-way from Centerville Turnpike to Ferrell Parkway and full improvements at the Indian River Road intersections with Kempsville Road, lake James Drive, and Thompkins Lane. Currently, this project is on the Requested But Not Funded Project Listing. The current limits on the Indian River Road / Kempsville Road intersection improvements do not extend to this site. Public Works' Traffic Enaineerina Comments Right-of-way improvements will be required along the Bonneydale Road frontage of this site. Improvements include, but arE! not limited to, pavement widening, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage, and street lighting for a 30-foot roadway typical section. The Concept Plan is showing some of these improvements. TRAFFIC: Present Present Capacity Generated Traffic Street Name Volume Bonneydale Road 930 ADT' 9,900 ADT Existing Land Use" - 11 ADT NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 12 Page 2 Proposed Land Use .j . 42 ADT (7-AM Peak Hour Vehicles; 6-PM Peak Hour Vehicles) Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by a single-family dwelling 3 as defined by a 3,600 square foot office WATER: This site is connected to City water. There is a six-inch City water main along Bonneydale Road Boulevard. The existing 5/8-inch meter may be used or upgraded to accommodate the proposed development. SEWER: This site is connected to City sanitary sewer. The applicant shall provide an analysis of Pump Station #444 and the sanitary sewer collection system to ensure future flows can be accommodated. There is an eight-inch City sanitary sewer gravity main along Bonneydale Road. SCHOOLS: School populations are not affected by the request. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this request. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. For properties within Primary Residential Areas, the Plan emphasizes the need to preserve and protect the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods and to not support incompatible uses. Established residential neighborhoods will be protected against invasive land uses that, due to their activity, intensity, size, hours of operation or other factors, would tend to destabilize them. Non-residential rezonings should not intrude on the peripheries of residential neighborhoods to the detriment of those neighborhoods. The proposed use contributes to strip commercial development and would expand a trend of rezonings and incompatible uses in this established neighborhood. Evaluation: This area of Kempsville experienced explosive growth in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. This site was denied a rezoning from the then R-4 Residential to B-2 Community Business in April 1979. The site, with four other contiguous parcels, again requested a rezoning from the then R-4 Residential to B-2 Community Business in August 1981. Staff at the time recognized that the proposal was inappropriate given the stable residential neighborhood adjacent to the sites. The request was modified to 0-1 Office district with requirements of standard site improvements and a 15-foot buffer with an eight-foot high fence along the rear of the sites. The 0-1 Office District provides for low-intensity uses that are generally compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. The applicant did try to work with staff to find a reasonable solution to the problem of the proposed rezoning encroaching into the adjacent neighborhood. The proposed building is one-story, as are many of the homes in the neighborhood; the proposed building is 3,600 square feet, which is similar to many NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 12 Page 3 homes in the city. The applicant is providing a 15-foot buffer with fencing and evergreen plants adjacent to the residential zoning. The applicant is sharing an entrance with the offices to the west. The applicant is providing double the number of parking spaces required. But these concessions do not alleviate the fact that the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area. It is Staff's conclusion that good architectural and site designs are not acceptable substitutes for good land use planning. The focus must be on applying sound land use planning practices first, and then addressing design considerations. The area, particularly on the east side of Kempsville Road, is a stable residential ne~ighborhood. The proposed use is not compatible with the stable residential area adjacent to the site. The activity and overall character of the proposed use would contribute to strip non-residential development and would encourage future rezonings introducing additional incompatible uses in this established neighborhood. Staff therefore, recommends denial of the request. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 1 07(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (9107(h)(1)) Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as condition:; restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: The Grantor shall develop the Property in substantial conformity with the conceptual site plan prepared by Porterfield Design center, entitled "Concept Plan, 5315 Bonneydale Road for Savage, Sabol & Visser, L TO", dated Octobl3r 13, 2008, (the "Concept Plan") a copy of which is on file with the Department of Planning and has been exllibited to the City Council. PROFFER 2: The Grantor shall develop the structures on the Property in substantial conformity with the conceptual site elevations prepared by Porterfield Design center, entitled "Concept Elevations, 5315 Bonneydale Road for Savage, Sabol & Visser, L TO", dated October 13, 2008, (the "Concept Plan") a copy of which is on file with the Departml3nt of Planning and has been exhibited to the City Council. PROFFER 3: The Grantor shall not develop any structure on the Property in excess of twenty-two feet (22') in height. PROFFER 4.. The Grantor shall provide landscaping and fencing on the Property in substantial conformance with the Concept Plan and Site Elevations. PROFFER 5: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COMMENTS: The proffers are acceptable as they insure the site will be developed in accordance with the submitted preliminary site and elevation plans. However the proffers lack assurances that the proposed us€!s limited to the site are low-intensity uses that may be compatible with the surrounding NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 12 Page 4 neighborhood. Additionally the proffer agreement does not address hours of operations for the business. Both of these issues are crucial for the quality of life of the surrounding neighbors. Notwithstanding these issues, however, staff cannot support this request. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated February 28, 2009 and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 12 Page 5 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 12 Page 6 - ~ PROPOSED SITE PLAN NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 12 Page 7 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS PLAN NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES, LLC. Agenda Item 12 Page 8 First Colonial Road Associates LLC o 0 0 ~ Q ~, ., 0 ~ ~ ~5 R. 5 "0 G frQ 0 0 f\ {t ,f lJ (j f.\ - I\!-! Is' Q'9- a J D'7 ~2' 1. 9/14/81 Rezoning (R-4 Residential to B-2 Business Approved - modified to 0-1 Office) 4/9/79 Rezoninq (R-4 Residential to B-2 Business Denied 2. 12/11/07 Rezoning (0-2 Office to B-2 Business) Approved Conditional Use Permit (Church) 12/2/03 Conditional Use Permit (Church) Approved 1/11/94 Rezoning (R-4 Residential to B-2 Business Approved 9/14/81 - modified to 0-1 Office) Approved 3. 10/26/04 Rezoning (0-2 Office to B-2 Business) Approved Rezoning (R-4 Residential to B-2 Business 9/14/81 - modified to 0-1 Office) Approved 4. 5/25/95 Rezonina (0-2 Office to B-2 Business) Approved 5. 1/26/93 Conditional Use Permit (Truck Rentals) Approved NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Agenda Item 12 Page 9 z o t I ~ C :) ) C ~ r"'. ~ c;..:, Z t I Z o .t-J ~ ~ o t I 'f-c t n- L C .~ C1:l r"'\ 1'''-'' "'" j U ~c..L T'" TF 1\ " cNT ! /...l" \ :::'1\1 L_l, UR . - .~.. ..... -.- -----.'_.._.-.-._- ,~.",.. """"__,___,_,,,"_'^',,_..,,__,_._~~._.,.., ~ __""______AAV~~_.......__~_,,___. . _ __ __ ,_ _,___~w_~.,."'...,.."..~."..,,,.,.,... "> _ ._ "_ _ A __'__,_",_',<"__",,,__,_,__ V~_.,,~ ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES L,st all known ccntractc;rs or OUSlnF;S~,\-:'3 ':It "L0:)( i L, :' '" >,:::1', ,:e~; ,,125 to the requested property (,se, ir"h~~tucjlf'g t tic',l Ii .:'t; ,-\ -;~~.rs :r !'ecturai 3EWJICeS,'eal estate servis~:.;s finqnclal ser\ iu"slCCC'U! TU .J:fl; , .:"S J k"Jdi services ,Attach list if necessary l t j; ~ ; PorterfillJ!;1 Des!.9rLCer~jJ?r - 8n9\ neen ng/)and planni no, '3 rc1J~t!?:i:L., raL.._,..___._____.__ Iroutman .SaL'd~fS LLP - leoal _________~__._ l'Parent-subSHli,:HY relationship' lneans a relationSPip ex,sts wlien one CGrporation r..liredly Of indirectly owns S11i31eS possessing rno; e than percent of thi'; vot;ng pov>ler of another cOfPcf:lh)r;' See State ,md local GovenHTlent C>)'lfHcr nterests ~<.t Ii a Code ~ 2.2<3'101. "/\ 1itiated business emtity relationship rneans'a nsl?ltl()nsliip otl1ef thmr parent- SubSIdIary relationship that ,"::xists when (I) one bustness entity has a cOl1troliing o'.\lnership interest in tile other business entity Oi} a contrnUing owner in one entity is dIsc, H controlling ()wner in the other .:;ntity or dii) ther'3 is shared management or l:;ont[;)1 between the business entities, Factors that should be conSidered in determining the exis!eni::e of an affiliated business entity relationship irlclude that the same person or substal1t:alJy tile same person own or manage the t\.vo entrties there are common Of comrnin]i~;j funds or assets: business e('titie~:; share the USI~ ot the :3ame olfiees or empi,) Jf Ahel'iiise activities "esources or personnel on a regular basis, or there JS othenvise d close wCd'king relationship netv/een the entities" SeA State and Local C;overnrnent COr'fld ,if Interr"lsts /....ct.. Code ,~ 2 2-3101, CERTIFIC)~ TION: I certify that the information cCP!;3;ned herein ;s true and accurate I ",nderstanei that. ,..pun of notification postcard) that the applii:,at :al has been schs:cil.lecl for pub!lc t;ear:nq I am respons b;e for attaining and pl)st:ng the -equirea sign en the subject pf'Oceny at east 30 daiS to t',\F; sch,~d,Jied publiC nearing According to tl1e ;nstrudi'Jr1:i in W,is pad;age 'he ur-rJersigned :3:';C ':;on50,(1ts L)::n(r'j,.,ccn the subject orODerty by )f tne Dep3rtment of to c ~:r-'~j ~/~~:~"V ~he s te for r~1tFp()s',es of pro\'~ess,ril] and e-J :tl?.5 appHc-ator~ ~ '~'-"""-'--"'-'-""-"''''''''-'~'~~-''' ".-...., ~.- ---_._....,._...~_._--,--~.~.,.,',._~ _._--,-,.._------- *----.- ._~_..~_._--~. -~ ,.._._--~<,-_._.._..,--~..__.__._.- ~;i f-.:~ Print N3rne _l?illrle As.-!~fiolicq,nt_...__, '~'__' F'fopert'i (J\lVn ~~rs ,!f diff(~fent tnan -Jr'c!jcar~tJ p~.: r;~ r-\~arne ':ltl'.'f~ ~i F' _'L_ -' i''\ ~"f i. ,f 1 p ,'-, '0,j' 1 ! ': ~! . ! ,." ~" f'""\1'"" ---'l '-l~l lRE'-- '7'~',' 't_J ~ G ~" l\,_~, '.,.,,-' V '\ -.:.:,;,'..\ , ,I L:~ J T ~-",,,>*~--,,,,_~,--"'-- ._,.~-_.. *~.~--_.~--~~-"-".""'. - _'~,',,,'--' - ..~ ..-.. .~~..,,-_.__._...._,--'-"-~-' _......._-~-_.,,~ -~ -,-"_....-_.._._".~_._. -"~....._.._.. ".- -.,.....-..,-..,' ,- -- -,. APPLICANT D!SC SURE :f ~< Ddr"ii'~/:(~~"lI; ,: ',o'j JC: Iii;, ~'i-'''~;~ , .' , 'I' ,rcFm;z ;hHl :f'n1 L -:t 1'-",: Jpr'liciwt Tii' ,C> Uldrt<:r:: ute L ,', /\:LiCi' f~'; ;- '. , ~ ~ ,\ . r-; ", .' 11,,:\ J '-, ,- i .:.;t ~f ic.'C,i- . ',', ,~ '. I ~.~en'lf'~,c;rs: ;nttl(){)\) \/';~! StJ\/a{.lf~. D.D.S.; (;t~i rCl(:;-J. _,,,,..__,___,____---'-,,__,_,,_,,____,:1.2,__,..,_,___,, __,,_'.. --",---- DO,:;, --,---,~.--'- Li'lt :;iI i ,:>3ill::)Sses that na ,,(; a pdrentsubsj(1klrj r Jff, n:'latliAlship vvith the 3poiicant: (Attadl fist If neces,c:arp . :';'lnt:;::>:.~ l' V "._..___t~J_~2iJ~::;~~.,__.,_.~_.__._.,_.._~___,___..,_____._~__.___,,_.~______'._.___A._____.._'___'_.____.'._-.----,.~ o Chef h,:;re if the applic:ant is NOT a C'_,rpomtion, partners!')ip, rm r IIJ:;P1E:~..,S nr ui ;,J' )irh~orporatRd UrCFH1I7atlon- PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Com%re r! lis section only if prOfJj.:rty owner i8 dilferent fraIT? ,-ippfl'.I!flt, If the pruperty owner is a corporation, partnership firm, business, Dr other unincorpor;::Jted (Jrganization, complete the followinq: U;3t thE: propertv OINner name followed by the names of all .:--ffic..;i's, rnE'rnb.::rs, trustol":'~3, partners. etc. below: (Attach list if ne~essary) SarrE ciS .L'vyol;CClrlt -_._-,-----~~-------- --_.'---,-,,------_.._---,,--,,_..,-,---,._---' 2, List businesses that have a parent-sunsidr3rY' or affiliate" busin'~ss entity. ship '.;'lith the apphcant: (Attach !I~;t if nec:e:;saryJ here if the property owner IS NOT a corporation, p3rtnershic, firm, nF~SS, or ether unincorpo'-at8d ,,)rqani.t>:1t,on, (3~ - ." nj:~ ;~f~ f(, ' 1 r >", _)t.-.,~ ....,'.:;s ~:Jil ~..; .Jr (;cn City l/irqiniJ Beach have cln if' k;i"Est in the i(Jr>I'- 'y'es or (:Ii,pioj<;(; and the nature tt\{~lr nter"; J ';''':3 ' ;....,; namp, z o >> t ~ -< C) I . ~ "..... ea c..:;, z I C Z o ,t" .:J ga ~ o ,II. C IF--t j ) I Q Z o c ,) Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Change of Zoning District Classification 5315 Bonneydale Road District 2 Kempsville September 9,2009 REGULAR Donald Horsley: The next item is item 12, New First Colonial Road Associates. An application for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-15 Residential District to Conditional 0-1 Office District on property located at 5315 Bonneydale Road, District 2, Kempsville. R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much Mr. Horsley. Madame Chairwoman, and for the record, my name is RJ. Nutter, and I'm an attorney representing the applicant, in this case is New First Colonial Road Associates. New First Colonial Road Associates, ladies and gentlemen is really an Orthodontic dental practice by the name of Savage, Sabol and Visser. My clients have been in this practice for well over 20 years, and many of them are second generation orthodontists. Their parents had the same practice for a period of time before that. They have been a part of this community for better than 30 years, and this location in particular that I'm going to talk to you about for an excess of20 years. Their other offices are small. All of their offices are locations just like this, with one exception. Forgive me, but having said that, they really are part of an area. They are not another piece of 0-2 or 0-1 on a zoning map, as so often these maps tend to depict. They are part of this community, part of that neighborhood, and a few of them have resided there for a period in excess of 20 years. Also, I want you to know about them before you know about their practice, what they do and the services that they render. They have rendered this valuable community service, which if any of you have children, you may have had braces or they have had braces. If you're lucky enough to have children that don't have to have braces, then my hats off to you. I will also tell you that the smaller portion of practice is for adults. You may recall me standing up here for about 2 Y2 years with braces, and they took care of my braces when I needed them, after having taking care of my children's. So, I can personally vouch for their services, their demeanor, and the fact that we have never had any trouble in their offices. They are always a wonderful place to go, and we never had any trouble with adjacent property owners or anyone else for that matter in the residential area. What's happened is the demand for their business has grown. People are more interested in how they look. Their teeth, their cleanliness, and their health, and that is a part of their process. So, they wanted to expand their business at this location, and in the process of that, it really set out to accomplish several goals. The first of which was to be compatible, and I'll go over these in a second with you, to be compatible to solve. The only problem that we have discerned from talking to residents in the area is that they currently cause to this area, that they wanted to correct is the parking problem. I'll tell you about that. And a third is to do this in a way that met with support of at least the immediate adjacent property owners with whom they would have to live. If I can go to the site plan Stephen? I'll show you how we tried to accomplish that. First of all, their current office is located, this building right here, is where their current office is located. This is Alpha condominium. Their portion of the building is right in here in the far corner. And part of what they want to do is to build a one-story structure right here, to face the structure of the existing office, not the residential area. The side portion of the building will look just like a normal residence, which you will see in a second. But your entrance way will be here and across Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 2 the back, we've done a complete buffer program. First of all, we've increased the buffer from 10 feet to 15 feet. But within that area, instead of just Class I landscaping, which is required by the code, we've put Class I landscaping inside our property, first along this line, then we put a six foot solid fence, which is not required, and then we put Category IV landscaping behind that fence. So, not only is there nothing on this side of the building other than a fire door and some windows for light, there is no access and it is completely screened from the adjacent residential home. In addition to that, the access way, this property like every other lot has direct access to Bonneydale, we eliminated that access way on this application so we could come in through the existing office area. Therefore, there would be no further intrusion down Bonneydale by anyone coming to this site then there is today. There would be no expansion of that, and there would be one less curb cut on Bonneydale. And then finally, because we're doing that, it is not shown on this picture, over this exhibit, but if you went on the van trip, I will tell you there is a large dumpster right here. That dumpster currently services the office facilities that are here today. That dumpster gets removed from this site entirely and gets put back on this site. Actually it is going to back up in this corner right up in here. So, it is back between the existing offices. Now we are going to focus our attention on this site, but I will also tell you that the property next door to us, down to about here is zoned B-1 Commercial property, so we have 0-2 on this side, B-1 on this side, and R-15 on this side. One gentleman is here to speak in favor of the application, Matt who owns this property, and we met several times with my client, in particular to make sure that he was okay. So, I'm happy to tell you that we have the support of Matt and his family, as well as the office condominium owners here. I will tell you that is no small feat. Some of you may know the dentists in there. They also wanted to make sure this worked with their practice and it didn't hurt them. It was compatible with their building. Can I show the elevation Stephen? Thank you. As I indicated to you, we also wanted to show that the building would be compatible. This would be the view of the building from Bonneydale. As you can see it looks completely residential in nature. The rear of the property, what the neighbor is going to see is right along here. This is with the fencing and landscaping. And then the inside of the office, when you look inside the parking lot, this is how the building will look. It is one-story. We have a restriction in the ordinance that says not higher than 22 feet in height. It is a hip roof as you can see, residential in nature with residential features. We've tried to be both compatible and solve the parking problem. Remember, when I told you that parking was in excess here. Sometimes there is overflow parking on the street, so in this case we literally doubled our parking requirement. We're required to have 13 parking spaces for this structure by code, we're providing 26 parking spaces to make sure that we eliminate the problem that some of the neighbors were exhibiting before. What we did, as I told you, is that we went out, and I think each of you, and staff has delivered to each of you, but ifnot, I have copies ofletters in support from both the adjacent office building, Mr. Townsend Brown, Dr. Townsend Brown, as well as three residents of the neighborhood, who are all in favor of the application. I'll be happy to pass those out. Mr. Livas, I'll put some on your side. Thank you. Mr, Ripley, if you wouldn't mind. We do have opposition so I'll reserve some time for comment on that process. We did try to meet with the opposition unsuccessfully I'm afraid. But we did hold out an opportunity to meet with them on numerous occasions. I've sent them copies of the applications and the exhibits that I have explained to you all today. But I'll be happy to answer any questions. We believe we have worked as well as we could with staff. We tried to follow every suggestion they made to us, and most have taken the conditions of these residents. I consider these people residents, even though they don't typically live there. They have been in the same neighborhood for over 20 Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 3 years. They have treated many of the people in the neighborhood. You are going to see one letter from one lady who is a current client, so they really provide a service to this area. We would hope that you would recommend approval of the application, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have about the applicant or application. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Nutter? Henry? Henry Livas: From a practical point of view, I think you have done a great job as far as the transition from the office over to the neighborhood, the way you've done the landscaping, the turning ofthe building, and all of that. However, how do you answer the questions ofthe professional plmmers that say we're into an encroachment situation? I think some people can realize this as great practical value, but they are stuck on the theoretical things. R.J. Nutter: I agree with that theory, but I think you have to look at the neighborhood at little bit larger. I don't think these are really too incompatible uses. I think a use that provides a service like this is a corrpatible use. In fact, as you know, we use office as a buffer to residential and office and multi-family as a buffer to commercial all the time. So, I don't see anything significantly different in that process. What you really have is a long term matter in this case it happens to be a ~.mall dental practice that wants to grow a little bit. To do that, they done it in conjunction with the residents next door, and therefore, I don't really think it's an intrusion. I think it is a natural growth. You are going to see a neighborhood expansion of homes. In an area like this where a small practice. If they were coming in to put a GEICO office, I would say wait a minute. That i!) a different fish. But because of what this is, I fee11ike it is a very comfortable natural expansion of something that has been there for over 20 years. That is why I don't believe it. I don't see it as a comprehensive plan. I don't think there is a line as solid as the staff would have you believe in this case. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Go ahead. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Nutter, you mentioned there is a Category I landscaping buffer between the two pieces. Do you know the species or anything like this at this point? R.J. Nutter: Actually Ron, what we're doing is the Category I that is actually required. What we're doing is putting in Category I first, which is low level on our property line. This is all along our property. We're putting in first level I, which I believe is some small plantings that we're going to let Matt pick out. Then right behind that we're putting in a six-foot high fence on our property, which is not required by Category I, and then immediately behind that fence in that 15-foot buffer we're putting in Category IV, so it will be a combination of Evergreen, and Deciduous trees that we're completely letting Matt, the neighbor pick that landscaping. Ronald Ripley: Let me ask you a question about parking. Currently, I noticed that one of the letters that was in our package indicated that sometimes there is parking occurring along the street now as a result of the operation that is there now? R.J. Nutter: Yes. It's there today. Because my clients right now only practice there three days a week and some of the other practices in that existing building operate under similar time restrictions. They are self imposed time restrictions, but on occasions when they are there Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 4 together, they will have a number of clients who park on the street because the parking lot is full. Even though they are meeting the required parking requirements, that is still that problem. So, we want to try to address that by providing additional parking well beyond what we're required to do. Ronald Ripley: What were you required? I got the 26. RJ. Nutter: We were required to provide 13. Ronald Ripley: Thirteen. RJ. Nutter: And we're providing 26. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. RJ. Nutter: Yes sir. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Thank you. RJ. Nutter: Thank you very much. Donald Horsley: We have another speaker in support. Matt Nettesheim. Janice Anderson: Welcome. Matt Nettesheim: Hello. I'm Matt Nettesheim. Is that the buzzard right there? I live in this house right here (pointing to PowerPoint). And I've lived there for quite some time now. And, there has always been a parking problem with the businesses right there. There is always an encroachment into the neighborhood with people parking along this street. Sometimes they will pull into my driveway because they haven't been able to find a place to park, and they will pull into my driveway to turn around. They will go down this corner. I find the parking an encroachment into where I live. I have seven children. My children, and I've warned them about playing out there a lot of times because of the cars and the different situations right there. So, when I was approached with this idea of doing this, I was thrilled to death that they had an idea of solving the problem. And, now is it only solving the problem of the parking issue with the entrance right here and not right here (pointing to PowerPoint), I'm going to see less go down my street going into my driveway, turn around. They're going to go directly in there and have a place to park. This is going to resolve that issue right there. Not only that, the current way that they are going to do this is going to be beautiful. Acredale is a beautiful neighborhood, but the design character is not going to hinder. I don't know if you saw a picture of the house before that was on there, but the house on there is very, very dilapidated. I knew the neighbor before there. He didn't have any heat. They had a wood burning stove so they would have smoke blowing into my house all the time. No matter what happens that house is a mess right now. It is an awful mess. If this doesn't happen he is probably going to sell the house and somebody else is going to come in there. It is going to be a worse problem in the future if they don't do this. I think this just solves the whole issue right there. It was just a nightmare. The smoke Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 5 would just blow down and go into my house. It is just a mess. So, this whole idea of doing this is going to be aesthetically nice. It will have less encroachment with those cars, They're solving the car issue right there. The dumpster and everything is just a beautiful idea. I've had a neighbor corne knock on my door, and say, well I'm concerned about this. I'm concerned that they're going to I~ncroach into our neighborhood. And, personally, I don't think the other neighbor who has gone around and is trying to get support to go against this has any idea, personally. It's nothing personal against them. I'm thinking they just want to make a battle out of nothing because hands down being a next door neighbor, this is a help. This is a huge, huge help to the neighborhood, and the neighbor may have drummed up a little support against this. Being the next door neighbor I know the problem because of my seven children. I've thought about it a lot. I hope this goes through. I hope it goes through. I hope it goes through. I hope it goes through. Janice Anderson: Any questions of Matt? Thank you. Donald Horsley: The first speaker in opposition is Pat Ferguson. Janice Anderson: Welcome. Pat Ferguson: Good morning. Thank you for letting us to come to share our thoughts about this request. First of all, let me tell you I am a native of Kempsville. Ed Weeden: State your name for the record please. Pat Ferguson: Pat Ferguson. Ed Weeden: Thank you. Pat Ferguson: I have lived in Acredale for over 20 years. The problem is severe on this corner. I would like to correct a couple of things that I heard being made as statements here. The parking is every day. There are already 40 spots for 5,000 plus square foot building and it doesn't suffice. How is 26 going 1:0 take care of 3,000? It's not. Our kids are in danger if they walk on that corner. There are accidents that occur there all the time because it is trapped by the parking. You already have a Comprehensive Plan for the City that says this is not going to be allowed. It shouldn't have been allowed to begin with. We're very passionate about the quality oflife in Acredale. We live there because of that quality of life, and if the City Council starts amending that because the building looks better than the current residence, that is a poor decision. As far as the residents now that are there, this doctor's group has owned it since 2007. Why haven't they fixed it up, because this was their intent all the time. And this group of doctors, I have pictures of their other practices and they are not in blending view areas as they propose. I have with me today, if you would like to see them. I have also with me today over 70 signatures of neighbors that feel exactly like I do, that are against this. They are tired of it. They not only turn around in his driveway, they go back through the neighborhood, and cause more traffic through the entire subdivi:;ion. This is a problem for us because we see it as a domino effect. We're already at a very big hub in Kemspville, a very busy area. And if you start allowing 26 more cars to come down that street, and they have to start turning around somewhere, you created Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 6 another problem for us. And then you created standards for other neighbors and other neighborhoods. What is to stop the neighbor next door to this one from saying, hey, I'll see you my property. This is a residential community. And the Planning Department has worked diligently through two different designs. And they have worked with this applicant over and over again to come up with a doable solution, and there just isn't one, And again, to allow this is to allow more of the same. We've taken pictures. We have the petition with us today. We can speak to a lot ofthings, but the bottom line is that if you allow this you're setting a precedence for the next house down the street. And with 70 signatures, let me tell you how that occurred. The sign is so unnoticeable in the front yard, its red and the house is red, and people couldn't see it. All of a sudden neighbors started talking about it amongst themselves. It wasn't one neighbor. It's 70 neighbors. This is a 292 parcel neighborhood, and in less than a week, we were able to go out and reach the neighbors who were home, that weren't on vacation and sign a petition that quickly just by 70 residents in a 292 parcel. That's overwhelming. That's the voice of the people in Acredale. Now, we have gotten phone calls from Me. Nutter. We really didn't see a point debating what they were proposing. We understood it. It was comprehensive, but it was not acceptable. And we feel very strongly about that. We ask that you listen to this, and not approve it. We live there. Many of us have there. I've lived in Kemspville all of my life, all of my life. I own a business in Kempsville. I am passionate about my community. And I want to make sure that my kids. By the way, my son has bought a house in that neighborhood and generations are moving back in. And they want us to help preserve the future for them as well. So, please Commission, don't approve this. You have not been given all the correct information today that I feel we support everything against approving it. But your own Planning Department and your own people have said no to it. And they have done their job. So, please accept what they have proposed, and deny this request. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Ms. Ferguson, your handouts, can you hand them to Mr. Redmond? The petition, and the pictures. Pat Ferguson: I'll start with the pictures. David Redmond: Thank you. Pat Ferguson: First on the pictures you're going to see the property itself after hours. You're going to see the 40 lots of parking, which are on the front of the property and on the back. The property is owned by a condo association, so they are blended use spaces. If a doctor is moving out of a 900 square feet and 3,500 square feet, he is growing, and that means that his business is going to grow. And that means that this problem is going to grow. Also, the petition, I'll hand that to you as well. Just so you know, it took anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes to sit down with each one of these people that signed this petition to go over with them the plans that we have. We have detailed plans. We have the new plans that were just resubmitted maybe two weeks ago to us. We sat down with everyone we could once we had all the final documentation and presented to them the facts. And they felt as strongly as we did about it. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions of Ms. Ferguson? Go ahead AI. Al Henley: Yes. Can you see on this aerial your residence or where you live in Acredale? Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 7 Pat Ferguson: I don't think you can. I live back one more street past Acredale Road, so I'm the second street in. Acredale Road, I guess. Al Henley: Okay, so it is beyond Acredale Road? Pat Ferguson: Yes. I live on Olive. Al Henley: Okay. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Pat Ferguson: You will see pictures in there of his other practices. I wanted you to see that so you will see that they are not neighborhoods like this one. That is not a true statement. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you very much Ms. Ferguson. Pat Ferguson: 'Will I be able to get all of that back? Janice Anderson', Yes ma'am. It will end up where Mr. Ripley is. Pat Ferguson: Okay. Thank you. Donald Horsley: Our next speaker in opposition is Wanda Whitlock. Wanda Whitaker: Whitaker. Donald Horsley: Whitaker? Wanda Whitaker: Hello everyone. Janice Anderson: We1come. Wanda Whitaker: I'm very nervous speaker. I'll do my best. Janice Anderson: Just start with your name please. Wanda Whitaker: My name is Wanda Marie Whitaker. I live at 1221 Acredale Road. Janice Anderson: There is a little pointer. There is a little black pointer to the left. Wanda Whitaker: Don't show me all of this high tech. What am I doing? Okay, here I go. I live right there (pointing to PowerPoint). Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 8 Wanda Whitaker: I would like to thank you all Commission. I would like to thank Faith Christie. She has been wonderful. She has been fair. She has given me as much information as possible. Thank you. I don't want to step on these. She has been very fair and very patient with all of my questions throughout these proceedings. I would like to point out a few things. The gentleman who spoke from 5309, I think he moved into the neighborhood in 2004. He rents out his property. He is not a permanent resident. Just last month, he did have a REMAX rental sign in front of his yard. One ofthe renters went to the same bus stop as my daughter. So this is not a permanent resident. Mr. Nutter has one person who is okay with and maybe this other lady down the street who gets braces. Well, within two miles, and I'm all for competition and helping the market, within two miles, there are four other orthodontic practices. So, this is not a practice that is needed in this area or a practice that needs to be encroaching into this area. That lot there next to 1300 Kempsville Road, 1300 Kempsville Road is an 0-2. There are different conditional uses for an 0-1 versus an 0-2. They are trying to use the existing parking lot of an 0-2 condominium association. I'm sure there are legalities involved in that because they are conditional proffers for an 0-1 Conditional Use Permit right? Janice Anderson: I'm sorry. Wanda Whitaker: Okay. 1300 Kempsville is an 0-2 condo association. Janice Anderson: Correct. Wanda Whitaker: Okay, The property 5315 Bonneydale Road they want to encroach and rezone will be a Conditional 0-1 with proffers. Right, from what I understand? Janice Anderson: Right. Wanda Whitaker: If they want to use the existing parking lot to prevent any more traffic on Bonneydale Road, obviously that is smart, but they are using it, they're coming in from an existing zoned office to condo association. Janice Anderson: There has to be an agreement with them. They would work that out. Wanda Whitaker: Exactly. Okay, but that is between him and Mr. Townsend, but from what I understand that is a seven unit, 1300 has seven units to it. Janice Anderson: Okay. Wanda Whitaker: They are all sold. As far as the blighted property that he mentioned here, 5315 Bonneydale. Okay. Savage, Sabol and Visser purchased that, I think in September 2007 for a $195,500. Well, they have had ample time to fix that blighted property. There was a house across the street from me. Well you can't see it. I live at 1221 Acredale Road, but across the street from me, a man had purchased the home for whatever reason, let's just say he skipped town. Everybody wanted that property, for whatever reason it was tied up in some kind of legalities. It sat there with the back, while he started remodeling, just rotting. The whole back because the bank wouldn't put it up on the market. It stayed like this, and you can ask Buddy, Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 9 who is the actual inspector for that area. It sat rotting for maybe at least 1 Y2 years literally. Well, we just recently, about 7 months ago, about 7 months ago, purchase the home. They are a very nice couple. It's amazing what this house looks like now. They fixed the back up. Flowers are all nice and neat in the front. So, you can use this blighted. Anything can be fixed up. You know, once again, she showed you they have five locations. This, I think that fact that you know that everybody does community service. So, that is wonderful. I commend them for that. I do community servi~e as well. I've lived in this neighborhood since 1993. My children have grown up in this neighborhood. This is a neighborhood unlike any other neighborhood. People want to preserve Acredal e. We have nice mature trees. People love to walk through our neighborhoods. We have Oaks, water oaks, Magnolias. We have birds. We have hawks. We have all kinds of unique things. We supply the oxygen for half of Kempsville. There are directly across the street there are ample leasing options available for this orthodontic group. There is no disputing that. I clipped that in the paper somewhere. And, then I drove around the neighborhood. I've got several here within the requirements. There are 292 parcels in Acredale. What we bring in here, market wise is like $74.5 million dollars. Okay. That is what we bring in. If you allow this encroachment when there are so many others spaces. Right now, places across the street going out of business. Your Taps, Funky Beat. What are some other ones that are recognizable? There are so many small businesses right now that their doors are shutting. Janice Anderson: So, you would rather see this relocated somewhere else? Wanda Whitaker: I think anybody would, even not from a business and personal. It is just common sense. There is no reason for them other than. The only people that benefit from this would be them from a business point of view, a profitable point of view. There is no absolutely no reason for sorreone when there is ample leasing space available, like I said directly across the street. I drove tluough the neighborhood. Janice Anderson: Ms. Whitaker, you've gone over your time, okay, but let me see ifthere is anybody on the Commission who has any questions, Wanda Whitaker: Here is the ample leasing. Janice Anderson: You can hand that to Mr. Redmond. Wanda Whitaker: My daughter started high school yesterday. David Redmond: It was not easy was it? It wasn't an easy day for me either. Janice Anderson: We'll give it back to you. Wanda Whitaker: I drove by and found all of these places. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions of Ms. Whitaker? Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 10 Wanda Whitaker: Is there anything else like the market values or anything? And traffic calming. Do I need to give this to him as well? Janice Anderson: Yes. Wanda Whitaker: Traffic calming. I'll give you everything. Janice Anderson: Are you finished handling them out? David Redmond: Thank you very much. Janice Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Wanda Whitaker: Thank you very much. Janice Anderson: Okay. Mr. Nutter will find it back to you. Thank you Ms. Whitaker. Wanda Whitaker: Thank you very much. Donald Horsley: Our next speaker in opposition is Mark Patton. Mr. Redmond, when you get this information, will you let us know. Janice Anderson: Welcome sir. Mark Patton: I'm not very good in crowds and what have you. Janice Anderson: State your name please. Mark Patton: Mark Patton. I live on the corner of Bonneydale and Acredale. I live on the first house on the right hand side of the intersection as soon as you come in. Janice Anderson: Okay. Mark Patton: It is pretty vital. There are a lot of issues on that intersection because of when you turn in. If you could, show a bigger map of the business right now? When you first come in there is normally not enough area from the corner turning in, causes accidents right there. I would rather have him put one back farther off the intersection. Right now, in this intersection where the road thins out, it is very thin. If you put a trash can out there, people sometimes have to stop. It is that thin up in the road. They widened it where the business is right now. Cars park on both sides. It is a bad situation those two areas. I was instructed also that when you put this much parking you should have an overflow, like a little pond. I don't see any of that in the planning. There are a lot if issues just in the basic planning itself. I'm not very good. I'm going to read some notes real quick. I'm opposed to it. I have two boys. Either one cannot ride in the street. My oldest one is having problems. First we have too much traffic going in from Ferrell Parkway. That is upsetting because it comes screaming through. Second, there are cars that speed well above 50 to 60 mph on weekends. There are skid marks all up and down the street. I Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 11 live on the street so I see it. We keep asking for radar for cops, police, and they keep sending us a machine that does the radar thing. I think I've seen one, one time in the whole time I've lived there. I've lived there for 10 years, 9Yz. And this gentleman back here has only lived there 4 to 5 years. I'm giving him credit at 5, maybe. He doesn't live there that much. The person that I bought the house from has been there 10 years and more than 30 years. They live there for a long time. I love the house. I love the neighborhood. There have been six accidents in two to three years. One van rolled doing 60 mph hit a Maple tree, three foot around, stopped the tree from going through the neighbor's house. We've tried over five times, like I said to get radar and every time they keep setting up a machine. When people come into Bonneydale the turn and immediately go too far. You're doing 45 on Kempsville and it is ripping down from Indian River. As soon as you try to turn in, it is done. You've missed your turn into the business. So, you got to up and turn around at the intersection. The intersection is not even big enough to have cars turn around, I have a big truck, but even the little cars have problems. They go on the grass. The inlet parking, like I said is just too quick, too close to the corner. It is not made for a business. There is so much commercial business going on, and they are trying to build into our neighborhood. I bought in that neighborhood because it doesn't have gutters. It is all grass next to curbs. I mean no curbs. It is curbs up to a certain point where this gentleman just bought his house, and then it stops and goes all grass from there on out. It's all grass. I walk my kids to the bus in the morning. I am always constantly in the sake of their life. It is 25 mph. Nobody does 25 mph. I am jmt scared to death that my two sons are going to get ht. It is really bad. The parking on both :~ides on the entrance is really bad, too. If you people on both sides, which is typically what you have when you come in. I hope they do well, but it is just that it is a bad area to have a busine~;s. They have parking on both sides and normally people have to slow down to go by each other when the parking is on both sides. So, it is a bad situation. It is a bad thing to have. It is just an old neighborhood. Some of the signatures, and I went out and got some of them. I think I had two "nays" and they were just afraid to talk to me when I walked in the door. I'm a bigger guy and they might have been scared. Everyone says give me the pen. I don't want more traffic. Two of the neighbors have had accidents in the intersection pulling out. But my son cannot ride a bike in the street. I have to go to Indian Lakes to ride a bike in the public area. Acredale doesn'1 have it. It just tears me up. My oldest son has a problem riding a bike. Janice Anderson Thank you Mr. Patton. Are there any questions ofMr. Patton? Mark Patton: I've been only there for ten years. I see there have been people there for 20, 30 or 40 years. Most people have 50 years, some of the older people. Janice Anderson: Thank you very much. Donald Horsley: Our next speaker is DeAnna Fain. Janice Anderson: Welcome. DeAnna Faim: I'm DeAnna Faim, and I am a resident of Acredale, and I live at 1217 Acredale Road. I just want to echo just what you already heard. I am in opposition of this rezoning. I just don't want to see the neighborhood encroached upon. And there is no reason for it to be, again with all the available property to this group. That is it. Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 12 Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions of Ms. Faim? Thank you ma'am. Donald Horsley: There are no other speakers. Janice Anderson: Mr. Nutter? RJ. Nutter: Thank you very much. First let me thank everyone for coming today. It showed a lot of support for the neighborhood and a lot of concern. I would say that most of the concerns I heard really are valid things that we have not been a part of. In fact, we might be part of the answer to help. Most of the problems that we heard about are the traffic coming in and out of the area from people who have lived there for an extended period of time, so they know this, and that traffic problem isn't caused by our client. It is caused by this use. If anything, this use may be presenting, as it sits today, this property if it is rezoned to this capacity and part of the program, can help provide an access answer. It may solve some of these problems. Without it, you're going to have a continuation of the problem that these people are experiencing today. But the most important thing is, I will tell you, is that I don't want to get into neighbor versus neighbor, because I do not know any of them that well. Except that I can say that the gentleman next door with seven children, I don't think the fact that he has lived therefore for 4 or 5 years is relevant to the conversation. I do think that the fact that he lives there, he wants an improvement. He sees this can playa role in making his property more valuable, more stable without intruding into that neighborhood any further in the significant testimony to in favor of this exact location. But most importantly I have to tell you, that our group, the group of doctors we represent, have been there as long as these people. They have seen the change. They see the issues. They have to deal with them just like they do. They are coming forth with a proposal that quite frankly is design compatible with everyone around them, have the support of the two adjacent neighbors around them. I will also tell you if you look at the zoning map here, this problem is going to exist because of its proximity of Indian River Road, the condoning along this area, so what happens here can be a very important piece of this puzzle. The reason why I think this application provides the answer rather than the problem is because number one, we can help solve this access way. IfMr. Patton wants to talk to us about moving the access ways to help this situation, but we got to sit down with the other people like we did before, we can do that. The other thing quite frankly, we have the design with the way the back of building faces the residents is designed to be a barrier against any further intrusion. Right now there is no natural barrier to prevent the intrusion and expansion of this area. This provides it. It ends that corner up. It is inside the capacity to be one area that is right next door so this property can playa role in solving that problem. So, again we come to you asking for your approval, from both adjacent property owners, other residents in the area, from a business that has been there for over 20 years. So, we appreciate your time and effort today. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have, but we're very, very happy to playa role in expansion ofthis residential use of the property as well. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Nutter. R.J. Nutter: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions of Mr. Nutter? Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 13 Al Henley: Mr. :~utter, you have indicated that ifit is approved you're installing an additional 12 or 13 more parking spaces, I believe over what is above and beyond is recommended or required. And I know that the parking lot adjoining will the existing business patrons be able to park in this new :facility? RJ. Nutter: Yes sir they will. Al Henley: My next question is, and I assume that was a yes, but will there be a sign indicating that those busine:ises have overflow parking to this new facility? RJ. Nutter: I don't know of details to that. We're happy to make sure that is the case. Al Henley: There are so many times that I question that because there are so many times patrons may be afraid to go into another parcel of parking in fear of being towed, so I think if there is a sign there saying overflow parking or additional parking with an arrow, I think that would improve the situation. RJ. Nutter: We are happy to provide that because right now, unfortunately, as you know, the two driveways, the two parking lots there today are not connected. This will be the first connection between them. So, it is actually a great idea Mr. Henley. I don't think it was part of the discussion, but we will be happy to make sure that happens. Al Henley: Okay. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Ron. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Nutter looking at the photographs, as Mr. Patton said, the width of the road right in the vicinity of the existing office building, it looks like the curbing stops at the end of the existing office building right in front of the subject site, and it looks like the design that we're looking at in our packet, it starts to taper out to a reasonable distance, I guess with the sidewalk and the street. I heard discussion about maybe wanting to consider moving the entrance further that way. I don't know if that is a solution but would, but maybe, Ric Lohman will need address this, but would it be appropriate to maybe extend the taper so that tape starts at the end of the site where it abuts the residential site that is there. Therefore, you would have a wide pavement section for a longer distance which might help alleviate the congestion that could occur in that area. Is that something you would consider doing? RJ. Nutter: Yes sir absolutely. For the gentleman that spoke, we actually connected the two areas using the existing office because we didn't want to make any further intrusion. We would be happy and indicated to the woman earlier who spoke, I'll be happy to talk to the owners next door about maybe moving it out if that would help solve the problem. Ronald Ripley: I don't know, but maybe Mr. Lohman can address it. It seemed like that might help. RJ. Nutter: Sure. We would be happy to both taper whatsoever, and we're happy to talk if there Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 14 is a consensus amongst the residents to help eliminate the other access. We will be happy to go talk to the .owners of the other space. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. RJ. Nutter: Yes sir. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions of Mr. Nutter? Okay. Thank you. RJ. Nutter: Thank you very much. Janice Anderson: Go ahead and open it up. Do you have any new information sir. Matt Nettesheim: New information. Yes ma'am. Real quick. The traffic going through, and the one fellow brought a very, very good point, there is a traffic problem. People cut down from way over here, Ferrell Parkway, drive into the westerly road, come up Acredale and cut over here. And people will try to go from Ferrell Parkway and do a short cut right there. This has nothing to do with the building of this project. The most it seems like there are about six cars that get backed up in this area right here. The reason why they park there is simply because they have no parking in here, and so the issue, and we can't change those cars driving through Acredale from Ferrell Parkway. There is nothing we can do to change that. That is going to happen anyways. But this solves a real problem. I am the next door neighbor. I do currently live there. But solving that problem people will come in here, and say we can't pull into that parking lot, so we got to pull around, turn around and park right here and pull into my driveway so and so forth. So that solves a real live problem. The other problem is people driving 45, 50 or 60 mph. That is a problem, but that is not caused by this business. And the problem that we're going to solve by this business is those six cars that are parked there pulling into the driveway and then going around. Janice Anderson: Thank you sir. Mr. Lohman, can I have you come and answer the question. The neighbors have brought up the issue that there is a traffic problem along this road, and I do believe it is a cut through from some major arteries. They made some concerns that if you add another commercial office site, that is just going to be bring more traffic cutting through there to come to the expanded business. Can you go over the traffic issues on that road for us? Ric Lohman: Well, for the record, Ric Lohman, Public Works Traffic Engineering. I'm not that familiar with the issues. I believe we were looking the pictures earlier, and I had mentioned that it was a traffic calming street, Bonneydale is, which generally means that there is a problem that has been acknowledged by the City, and through enforcement it hasn't cleared up. So, they put up the increased speeding fines on that street. So, I think I saw that in one of those pictures earlier, which in generally mean that you probably have more cars, and they are probably not neighborhood cars that are using that road. But besides that, I don't know about the specific problems. Would that business increase the cut through traffic? You really don't know without doing a study. These are people that are cutting through from Ferrell Parkway. If there is cut through traffic now, it is going to be there whether this business is here or not. So, I don't think it is really relevant with the addition of that commercial there or the office space there. There Item #12 New First Colorial Road Associates Page 15 were a couple of questions, and I really haven't been out to see this site. But the road does kind of narrow there when you get to the first residence. If these guys decided to pull the pavement back, and kind of continue that section there, at least through, if this was rezoned, that would help a little bit. As far as the entrances go, we love to see that first entrance to the right off (pointing to Po\\-erPoint), we would love to see that move back to possibly there, ifnothing else to keep them from turning in right there at the corner. But, this project was never about this. It was always abotlt this, but if we could work this out at site plan, ifit gets to that point, we can certainly work, if these guys are amenable to it, to make this whole thing work better if there are issues with this, which I believe there are because there is a lot of traffic coming off of Kempsville. I can imagine them screaming because Kempsville is very, very busy, especially coming around the corner here. Janice Anderson: Okay. Ric Lohman: We can work that out at site plan. Janice Anderson' Go ahead Ron. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Lohman, so widening that pavement section might be helpful you think? Bringing it tapered back further back? Ric Lohman: For that little stretch? Yes, it is not going to help them back further than that one parcel. It is still a very narrow road back there. I don't know what type of parking this business addition needs or how much extra parking they do need, but if it did drive parking back into the neighborhood, it would still be a very narrow street. Ronald Ripley: Let me address something that the neighborhood raised and that is the traffic going through the neighborhood. Can you describe what the process is for the neighborhood to get into the traffic calming program that would help maybe solve some of those problems or is this neighborhood already into that? Ric Lohman: I believe they are already into it. Can see if you can find that one picture? The program if the sign is correct and I think she is saying it is correct then they are already into phase III of the program. Phase I is that we come out to check and see if there is a problem in the neighborhood through speed measurement devices and volume measurement of traffic. If you pass Phase I, meaning that you got 10 mph or greater above the speed limit, 85th percentile speed. I'm sorry. There is the picture. Ronald Ripley: It is already there. Ric Lohman: Th~y are already in Phase III of the program. Phase II is we come out and do education and enforcement, and through education and enforcement ofthe speed limit we still see the 85th percentile speed hasn't dropped below the threshold then we go Phase III, which again is through the petition for the neighborhood and approved by City Council. What happens at that phase is that we put up these special signs. What it means that anybody get caught speeding in there, you're facing a ticket of$350.00 or more just because of the added cost. Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 16 Ronald Ripley: Okay. Ric Lohman: Yes. They are in the ordinance. Bonneydale Road is included in the ordinance so they are already at Phase III. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Henry. Henry Livas: Ric, on your average trips a day, I see you got an increase of about 31, which is not a lot, would you say? And also, your knowledge of dental offices the way they work, people come in for appointments. They may sit around before they have their appointment. They get their dental work done and then they are gone. Unfortunately, we have to use the word "office" in this zoning, but in a regular office building people dump in there 8 :00 in the morning and work eight hours and everybody comes out at 5:00. So those are more ofa traffic problem then a dental office, I would think. Ric Lohman: They could be. You're probably going to have actually about the same number of trips, but they may be spread out more during the day because again, like you said, everybody is not coming to work at 8:00 and leaving a 5:00. It's spread out. You will have people coming and going during the day. Henry Livas: So, this should not be much of a traffic burden. A dental office compared to other businesses. Ric Lohman; Compared to other businesses? Probably not, but again just acknowledging it is more than a single-family house. Henry Livas: Okay. Janice Anderson: David? David Redmond: A quick question about that. If you say it increases trip, not you, but say the estimate is 41 trips. Does 41 trips mean 20.5 cars coming twice a day? I don't know really what that means. If I go to that dental office? Ric Lohman: That's two. David Redmond: That's two trips. Ric Lohman: Yes sir. David Redmond: You're coming and you're going. Ric Lohman: Yes sir. David Redmond: Okay. So, you're really talking about 20 cars coming individually each time if it is two trips essentially? Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 17 Ric Lohman: Yes. David Redmond: Okay. Ric Lohman: That's the bases ofthe trip generation. Again, we're using the national standard for trip generation. David Redmond: I'm not questioning it. I just didn't know what the answer was. I appreciate it. Ric Lohman: And the same thing with a single-family house. It is 10 trips. It's coming and going. So that means you leave your house five times. David Redmond Okay. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions for Ric? Thanks Ric. Ric Lohman: Okay. Thanks. Janice Anderson: Ms. Whitaker, we're going to do discussion now ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Wanda Whitaker: I have new information. Janice Anderson; We have to go forward. We gave you extra time when you were up here the first time. I'll open it up for discussion. Jay? Jay Bernas: For me, this was kind of a gray application since it could pretty much go either way on it. But, there are three things that really stuck out there for me where I can't support this application. One of the things is that I live near this area, This is right next to Kempsriver. And if the applicant came in here and said, we need more office space because you know there isn't any in Kempsriv(~r, and we need to increase the office space, so now we need to start encroaching into the residential neighborhood, then I would say from a land use perspective maybe we didn't do the right thing. Maybe there needs to be more business because there is more of a community need that would drive putting in more office space. And I just don't think that is true. The second thing is that the neighborhood doesn't want it. I think the fact that they came in here. They spent the time to get the petition signed, really, is striking for me, and I think they don't want 10 see this commercial use encroaching into a stable residential neighborhood. And lastly for me, the most important thing is I think we need to hold the line. I think the line between commercial and residential, especially in stable residential neighborhoods, need to be firm. I think that the best quote in the staff report is "although I think it is a good design. I think the site plan they have laid out is the best that they could do, that good design is not a substitute for good land use planning". And for me that was the most striking thing in the report, and for those reasons, I can't support the application. Janice Anderson, Thank you Jay. David? Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 18 David Redmond: I support the application. In my view, at one side it's got a tune to the south. It is commercial all the way to Indian River Road. It's bounded, seems to me, by the greatest amount by commercial space. Be it all that it may, that is not the largest reason. In my view the greatest problem with this site as it exists today is the cars that I see in those photographs on Bonneydale Road. I bet it does make a safety issue. And it is unsightly. And it is, I think it is, very injurious to the neighborhood. I don't blame you for being upset if your kid ride bikes down that road. My problem with that is that it looks to me like the very ample parking that is provided is going to do more to mitigate, perhaps even solve, that than it is to exacerbate it. I think in a number of respects it is a model application. This is never easy, one of these applications. It is never easy. In a case where it might work this is well sighted. The building is well designed. The access is well designed. It looks to me that it is going to solve the problem as opposed to creating one, or exasperating one, or adding to it in any way. I do think that the applicant has taken great pains to come up with a design and implementation that maximizes its benefit. Ifit didn't do that, I wouldn't support it. But it does, and I think in some case there should be a goal standard. And, I think that this probably accomplishes as much as the positive that we can expect from an application of this nature. Whether there is vacant real estate anywhere within a mile or two, or ten miles, I think is completely immaterial. It's a question on whether or not the application itself is meritorious, and in my view it is. I would also say that speed on Acredale Road, is also in my view, irrelevant to this application. People speed on every street. It drives me crazy, too, but I don't think it has anything to do with an orthodontist office. So, I'm going to support the application. I have looked. I have searched. I always try and find what is wrong with something, and when I find what's wrong with something then it makes it an easy answer. I can't really find what's wrong with this application with all of the things being equal. It looks to me that it is a pretty sound piece of work. I bet it would add to the neighborhood. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you David. Ron. Ronald Ripley: I'm going to support it as well. I think the pattern of the zoning appears to me to be logical. I think that does make sense on the surface. I hear what the neighbors were saying. I think my concern about the traffic, the through traffic is more of a police issue I think than a land use issue at this point. I think the parking on the street. This will solve it. I think that safety is a very important factor. I think this will help with the safety. Janice Anderson: Henry? Henry Livas: I'm going to support the request, and I can see why the neighbors are upset. What I hear coming from them is they are upset because of the traffic, those that want to cut over to other major thoroughfares. I don't think it has a whole lot of bearing on this particular project. Like Dave said, this project is probably going to help it some by giving it more parking spaces. So, it is a tough decision. I've gone back and forth on, it but ultimately I've decided to support it. Janice Anderson: Gene? Eugene Crabtree: I'm like Mr. Ripley and like Mr. Redmond, I'm going to support it. I think the additional parking on site will eliminate the parking on the street. I'm sure that I agree with Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 19 Mr. Ripley that is probably more of a police matter with the traffic through there. And the traffic seems to be the big thing. As far as the encroachment on the residential neighborhood, if you take a look at the map that we're looking at the B-1 piece of property which is just adjacent to that to the B-2 property sits next to that, and the B-2 property that sits on now close to Indian River Road, if you draw a line straight through across those properties you will find that this property is not going any deeper into the neighborhood than it is physically as far as the physical land is concerned, so I don't think it is encroaching anymore in the neighborhood than what those other B-1 & B-2 properties are already encroached. Therefore, I'm going to support it. I think it is an improvement. It's getting rid of an uninhabitable structure and making it more habitable with more parking, more landscaping, etc. So, I'm going to support it. Janice Anderson: I'll just make a comment. I'm more in favor ofthe position that Jay, is against the application. :r think the proposal, and I don't have anything with the design, but I do have a problem with the issues that the neighborhood had brought up and what the staff report has brought up. They are already under stage three traffic issue and you're adding another commercial site. This is an expanding business. And it is going to add more traffic coming through there to go there. It is an encroachment on the neighborhood. Our policy is not to go any further, and ] don't see a reason really to stray from that, and this business has done well, and it is expanding. It has outgrown this site. I think it probably should really relocate someplace else in the neighborhood on an existing commercial site. I think Jay's comments were on track and I'm in full agreement with those, so I would be in opposition. Are there any other comments? Go ahead. Joe Strange: I'm going to have to oppose it also. From a land use standpoint, I can understand why the people would like to expand over there. I don't see anything wrong with their design or the building itsel:~ They are probably doing about the best they can with it. From a land use standpoint, as the: neighbors have pointed out, there are just all kinds of vacancies in that area. They are all over the place over there. Kempsriver, you go over there and half of those shops are empty. Ifit wasn't for that, then I would probably support it. But I don't think that as a land use planner that we are in the business of helping somebody to build their business or expand their business. If we were then that would be a good reason to do it because they are already there, but we are not in that business. I see no reason to take another piece of property that is zoned residential and turn it into commercial when there is no need for it there. So, for that reason, I'll be opposing it. Janice Anderson: David. David Redmond: I move approval of the application. Henry Livas: Second. Janice Anderson: A motion to approve by Dave Redmond and a second by Henry Livas. Kathy Katsias: I will be abstaining. My company does business with the adjacent property owner. Item #12 New First Colonial Road Associates Page 20 Janice Anderson: Thank you. AYE 6 NAY 4 ABS 1 ABSENT ANDERSON BERNAS CRABTREE HENLEY HORSLEY KATSIAS LIV AS REDMOND RIPLEY RUSSO STRANGE NAY NAY AYE AYE AYE ABS AYE AYE AYE NAY NAY Ed Weeden: Bya vote of6-4, with the abstention so noted, the Board has approved the application of New First Colonial Road Associates. Janice Anderson: Thank you all for coming down. RFCEIVED t"t" \ L- TOWNSEND BROWN, JR., D.D.S., P.C. Diplomate - American Board of Pediatric Dentistry Dentistry for Children, Te:enagers and the Handicapped www.vbkidsdds.com SEP 0 4 2009 PLANI\JING ~;~ ~ ~t ,. .4lre SP" September 2, 2009 City of Virginiu Beach Planni ng Department 2405 Courthollse Drive, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 RE: New First Colonial Associates Dear Sir: I am writing in support for the zoning change on 5315 Bonneydale Road, Virginia Beach, V A 23464. The present home is vacant and is in poor repair. The house should be condemned for it does not have a heating system! Our office building at 1300 Kempsville Road has a parking problem, and this new office building with additional parking would be helpful. The new office building would also greatly improve the property for our neighborhood, If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, J,- 1 ~ /1 yJt?S Townsend Brown,'J;~.s. 1300 KEMPSVILLE ROM> . SUITE 5 . VIRGINIA BEACH' VIRGINIA 23464 . (757) 467-7797 . FAX (757) 474-1493 -L 1 t:.J 'f"^'\ \ L- R.J. NUTTER II 757.687.7502 telephone 757,687.1514 faC$imlle rJ, I1Utter@1toutmansanders.com TROUTMAN SANDERS TROUTUAN SANDERS LLP Attorneys at Law 222 Cenlral Park AlIellU8, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 757.687,7500 u,lephooe troulmanaanders.com August 31, 2009 VIA E-MAIL fchristi~vb20v.com Faith Christie, CZA, CBO Planner, City of Virginia Beach 2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 115 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 Re: Conditional Rezoning Application of New First Colonial Road Associates, L.L.C. Dear Fai: I understand you have received correspondence from Mrs. Whittaker concerning opposition to my client's application, However, please know that we have tried to reach out on numerous occasions over a period of several months to meet with Mrs. Whittaker, but have had no success. We have, however, had an opportunity to meet with several neighbors in the immediate area. including the property owner and resident of the home immediately contiguous to this application. As a result of those meetings, we have received the enclosed letters in support of our application. If you should have any questions, I would an happy to respond, Very;l~ rn Enclosures ATlANTA CHlCAGO HONG KONG LONDON NEW YORK NEWARK NORFOLK ORANGE COUNTY RALEIGH RICHUOIlD SAN DIEGO SHANGHAI TYSONS CORNER VIRGINIA. BEACH WASHINGTON, DC May 18, 2009 To Whom It May Concern. I live at 5153 Bonneydale Road and have been asked to review architectural plans for rezoning for a business at 5366 BonneydaJe Road in the Acredafe area. I have seen the plans proposed by Savage Sabol & Visser Limited. These plans look esthetically plec:lsing and keeping in with the neighborhood appearance. Currently there are times when the street is fiUed with parking cars and narrow to get by. The plans show respectful parking to alleviate the problems in the street. If you need any further remarks on the rezoning of this area, please feel free to give me a call. Thank you, _I ~ ..'- .,,~ Virginia Reynolds 5153 Bonnevdale Rd ' . Virginia Beach, VA 23464 (757) 718-9612 (cell) 9-19-09 To whom it may concern: My name is Matt Nettesheim and I am the owner of the property at 5309 Bonneydale Road Virginia Beach. VA 23464. For quite some time there has been cars parking on the street from the growing businesses located two doors down from my property. I would love to see them have the opportunity to take the property neltt door to me which is run down in disrepair and turn it into a beautiful new business building with lots of parking. I am all in favor of this and would hope they start work tomorrow. If you have any further questions feel free to call me at anytime. 757-286-5628 Thanks. ~ Matt Nettesheim . =",;:;;:.,;;;;,~::::::-;;;:;.:- - - . ~~.. "'-::;;;;';:"<::"~:;---r--;:~"; ---~~"~::--; ~~,~ ,:.. :';..~ 'f" , "ot:-,' ....-p' . ~" , /:'~? ..' ..' >:>~~"""""".' .~ .t-~ ""',' .'". """~ I? lh _ ' ""'_, .", ,'.....""..P,-4:. ',', ' , ~~; ,,"~. __ti~~/S'~o 7' ,~.,_,,,,'!l.,,,,-,. ~"":"i "",. ~~ ~~ ~/~~ ,." ' . .-,cc /___.,i~..::{"""> o/?' 1Y':~~ ' bi'~d ,*~"J' .tfi 1F"P"< . j' ._./,L: . .' J . 'I' .... if.~. v~~ .o/r'"". ~..~-'~ ~. ~~r~.ftAj U ~~~~$c-'~ cf A~ ~ ~r/-t- fl'd, . .' td .... . vta-(J.~~~/..~4/_b ~L.;::::;:~ f;,.",.,.~,' ~', ',' --,~.~ u,r,.,...:....~ ~ v'..., _/V"V'.~...{ /' ' "'~;P7' . . ~.i!~1~A ' /\~~~ /f-;~-&~ r',.", ',' ,......,'~1.,,~,' " ~ ~ ~ ,,' Faith Christie From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Faith Christie Monday, August 31, 2009 3:01 PM 'apache975' FW: New First Colonial Road Associates, L.L.C. [Untitled]. pdf Importance: High While I was preparing the other e-mail to you Mr. Nutter sent this to me. Attached are three letters of support for the request. One is unreadable and as soon as I receive the hard copy I will let you know. Faith Christie, CZA, CBO Planner, City of Virginia Beach 2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 757-385-6379 -----Original Message----- From: Coburn, Mary Jane [mailto:Mary.Coburn@troutmansanders.com] On Behalf Of Nutter, R. J. Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:52 PM To: Faith Christie Subject: New First Colonial Road Associates, L.L.C. I have also placed a copy in the mail as the one may not be readable by PDF. Many thanks R. J. Nutter, II Troutman Sanders LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: 757/687-7502 Facsimile: 757/687-1514 e-mail: ri.nutter~troutmansanders.com IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice that may be contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding any penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction(s) or tax-related matter(s) that may be addressed herein. This e-mail communication (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you should immediately stop reading this message and delete it from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying or other use of this communication (or its attachments) is strictly prohibited. 1 Faith Christie From: Sent: To: Cc: Faith Christie Tuesday, September 01,20099:08 AM 'apache975' 'rj.nutter@troutmansanders.com'; Jack Whitney; Stephen J. White; Henry Livas; Harry E. Diezel RE: Rezoning in Acredale - please send this to all who received previous e-mail Subject: Good Morning Ms. Whitaker, No problem - probably a mix-up in communication. Have a great day. Faith Christie, CZA, CBO Planner, City of Vir'ginia Beach 2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 757-385-6379 -----Original Message----- From: apache975 [mailto:apache975@cox.net] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 7:09 PM To: Faith Christie Subject: RE: Rezoning in Acredale - please send this to all who received previous e-mail Hello Mrs. Christie, Mrs. Christie, Please send this e-mail to all those who you sent it to , so they don't think I'm some hostile nut ... please :) Mr. Jack Whitney, Mr. Stephen White, Mr. Henry Livas, Mr. Harry Diezel and Mr.Nutter. Per our Phone conversation on Monday August 31,2009 between 4:00 -5:00 PM. Regarding the message that you recl~ived on you machine on Friday (which resulted in this letter). I was " bewildered" (using your word:) , when I read this e-mail. I honestly thought someone called you and used my name (I'm serious). Because as you stated, we talked on Friday and everything was good (as all our conversations have been). Mrs. Christie, I have the utmost respect for you. As a very busy person, you've always taken the time to explain -:he re-zoning process to me and answer my question's (many questions). You've definitely treated me fairly and with respect I'd like to share th:Ls with you, because it's rather ironic and I got a good laugh out of it (you have a good sense of humor - check this out). My horoscope said : U with friends and loved think before you speak could be referring to your Everyone wants your attention, but make sure you spend quality time ones; reschedule everyone else. When discussing a sensitive topic, it's too late once the words have left your mouth (do you think it Friday voice-mail message I left? That was too funny:) Have a wonderful week Mrs. Christie and everyone else who receives this e-mail. Wanda Marie Whittaker 1221 Acredale Road Virginia Beach, Va. 23464 1 Faith Christie From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Faith Christie Monday, August 31,20092:59 PM 'apache975'; 'rj. nutter@troutmansanders.com' Jack Whitney; Stephen J. White; Henry Livas; Harry E. Diezel; Henry Livas RE: Rezoning in Acredale Importance: High Good Afternoon Ms. Whitaker, I listened to your phone message this morning and, I must say I was a little bewildered since we spoke on Friday afternoon, and I had sent the previous e-mail with my responses to your questions. So I will try again to address your concerns - 1. The only new information submitted has been the new site development and building elevations plans, of which you have a copy. You are more than welcome to come to the office and receive a copy of everything in the file. It is public information and the public may review the information during work hours. 2. The process is not "development friendly". I have analyzed the applicant's request with regard to land use as well as your concerns of development encroachment into a stable neighborhood. I treat everyone fairly. I have done no more for the applicant than I have done for you. 3. I understand your reluctance to provide the petition against the request from the neighborhood. You do not have to provide it before the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. 4. Please believe me when I say I completely understand this is neighborhood of working folks trying to protect their neighborhood from further commercial encroachment. The Planning Commission and the City Council take neighborhood opinions very seriously with regard to land use issues. I hope this addressed some of your concerns. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions or concerns. Faith Christie, CZA, CBO Planner, City of Virginia Beach 2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 757-385-6379 -----Original Message----- From: Faith Christie Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:29 AM To: 'apache975'; rj.nutter@troutmansanders.com Cc: Jack Whitney; Stephen J. White; Henry Livas Harry E. Diezel Subject: RE: Rezoning in Acredale Importance: High Good Morning Wanda, How are you today? How was the open house at school? I am going to try to answer some of your questions with this e-mail, and I will make sure a copy of it is given to the Planning Commission. First the Fire Department reviews the conceptual proposal and also provides a thorough review when the detailed site and building plans are submitted. Permits and Inspections reviews the 1 building plans for compliance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code and addresses fire issues with regard ~o the construction of the building. Second a new application was not filed. That is not necessary as the request for the rezoning remains the same. NE~w proffers were not submitted and a copy of the proffers were given to your representative when they picked up the conceptual site and building plans. Third the modified conceptual plans that were submitted (of which you have a copy) were dated 8/6 & 8/8 respectivE!ly. Rather than a whole new package of conceptual plans and proffers we allowed the applicant to re-date the plans to match the approved proffers. As I explained before an applicant's proposal is a work in progress, hence the conceptual labeling of the plans. Plans have bE!en slip-sheeted and or changed right up to the Council meeting. So this is not something unlsual. Fourth, we encourage the use of shared entrances in order to cut down on curb cuts along the streets and prevent additional traffic conflicts. As long as both parties agree we like to see shared entrances. I hope I have answered your questions. Please contact me if you have any other concerns. Have a great weekend. Faith Christie, CZA, CBO Planner, City of Virginia Beach 2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 757-385-6379 - - - --Original Messag2- - --- From: apache975 [mailto:apache975@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:24 PM To: Faith Christie;"j.nutter@troutmansanders.com Subject: Rezoning in Acredale Hello Mrs.Christie August 27, 2009 (Thur'sday) of 5 Page 1 Thirteen days before the September 09,2009, Wednesday at Noon ( the day after school starts) Planning Commission Hearing for the request of the Rezoning from Residential - 15 to Office - 1 . The property located at 5315 Bonneydale Road in the Acredale subdivision (right next door to applicants Ol~thodontist office at 1300 Kempsville Road - one of their five Orthodontist offices). Hello Mrs. Christie CZA, CBO (Current Planner) Hello Mr. R.J. Nutter (Applicants Attorney) Hello Mr. William WhItney (Director of Planning and Community Development) Hello Mr.Stephen White, AICP,PhD (Planning Evaluation Coordinator) Hello Ms. Angela Stevens, (Planning Technician) Hello Mr, Henry Livas (Kempsville district #2 -Planning Commission Member) Hello Mr. Harry Diezel, Our Acredale- Kempsville- Councilman. Hello to the Mayor and Vice Mayor, Mr. Sessoms and Mr. Louis, and all the other Council Members who serve in other Districts. I hope everyone is having a good afternoon, and I wish you all a wonderful weekend. Mr. Diezel , 2 As our Councilman and the City)s Fire Chief for 23 years before retiring; You served on the City)s Executive Management Leadership Team as the Public Safety Liaison and the Safe 'Community Team; The City)s Representative in the International Fire Chiefs Association; Also a Founding Member of the International Fire Code Institute . On a National level) you were the General Manager for the Federal Emergency Management Agency)s Disaster Response Team --- VA TF-2. A 180 Person Team) headquartered in Virginia Beach that has responded to several events) including the Oklahoma Bombing. Page 2 of 5 Mr. Diezel ) I can think of no-one more qualified to direct my questions to in regards to the Fire Regulations and Fire Codes involving the rezoning of 5315 Bonneydale Road in the very wooded subdivision of Acredale. This Involves the "New Development Site Plans" that have been submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council by "New First Colonial Road Associates) L.L.C.". Mr. Diezel ) as a retired Fire Chief with 23 years on the job) with all of your qualifications and extensive knowledge dealing with fire) and fire codes (and the rapid spread of a fire in a dry season). By looking at the City)s e-maps for 5315 Bonneydale Road and 1300 Kempsville Road . And the two large wooded lots that are adjacent to that property and adjacent to other Acredale residential homes: On the side (Bonneydale Road) and many in the back (Acredale Road). Do these new development site plans (not the previous site plans)) comply with any type of logical fire-codes pertaining to developing in an area that has not been updated with adequate) twenty-first-century fire/emergency safety measures (this is a very legitimate and serious concern) due to the age of Acredale and the development that was done around this area many) many decades ago)? Would the Fire Trucks and Fire Fighters) Ambulance Personnel and Police be able to safely get into this area and do their job before residential homes were destroyed and people injured? Mr. Diezel) we have many signatures on a petition opposing this rezoning / encroachment into our unique - peaceful - stable ... Acredale subdivision. We would like to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss this matter. We are a subdivision with 292 large-wooded-parcels , located in the heart of Kempsville. We have this wonderful piece of the Country sitting right in the middle of the City. Our mature- trees supply half the oxygen in this area:) We all love this neighborhood and feel very passionate about preserving it , not only for our-self's) but for our children who will be taking over these homes, continuously making improvements, while maintaining the ole fashion neighborly spirit ... that Acredale is know for (the next middle-class Acredale generation) . Page 3 of 5 Statistics for Acredale: Strong J Stable Average percent of assessment change of residential neighborhoods by district FY 2009/2010 : Neighborhood: Acredale Total Parcels: 292 Parcels with Improvements: 292 Percent of Change: 1.537 Mean: $ 255)177.00 Median: $ 247,050.00 Acredales Maket Value Figures : Acredales total land value: $ 47)498,600 .00 Acredales total building value: $ 27)052)700 .00 Acredales total value of processed parcels: $ 74,551)300.00 FY 2010 ASSESSMENTS BY PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION: 3 CLASSIFICATIONS PARCELS General Commercial Hotel Office Industrial Apartment Residential Townhouses Condominiums Agriculture 3,953 1,207 1,063 1,178 989 102,231 19,630 20,416 648 TOTAL 151,315 ASSESSMENT PERCENT OF TOTAL $ 4,947,531,180.00 $ 1,048,157,200.00 $ 1,451,972,870.00 $ 815,725,800.00 $ 2,743,677,100.00 $34,777,497,971.00 $ 3,417,692,200.00 $ 5,826,133,747.00 $ 223,429,961.00 $55,251,817,756.00 9.0 % 1.9 % 2.6 % 1.5% 5.0 % 62.9 % 6.2 % 10.5 % 0.4 % 100 % Note: Parcels reflect # of tax records as opposed to # of lots or buildings. Page 4 of 5 Mrs. Christie, walk:.ng into the high school was like de'javu :) My son and school were like oil and water (but he did graduate and join the Navy, he just came back from his second tour in Iraq). God took mercy on me with my daughter regarding school (but man, did he whamming me good with that teenage hormonal "Sybil" thing that girls go through :) Thank-you for your e-mail in response to my call. As a resident of Acredale in the city of Virginia Beach - where the application for rezoning from residential to office is taking place ; can I request a copy of the new application and ((Proffer's"? I'm assuming the "Proffer's" have changed as they will not be using the original site plan that was prepared by "Porterfield Design Center, entitled " Concept Plan, 5315 Bonneydale Road for Savage, Sabol & Visser, LTD", dated October 13,2008". W~ did pick-up the new site plans from your office a couple of days ago. We noticed several protlems that we will have to seek profession/legal advise on (one regarding Fire Regulations - Kempsville-Councilman Mr. Diezel should be able to address that issue). Second thing that irrmediately popped-out I'm not a lawyer, but ... combining the parking lot from an already ZONED, "29-0ffice-2" , Property class code: "412- office condominium" with a total of 7 units : The legalities of such action is very questionable. This joining of the existing parking lot at 1300 kempsville Road (page 12 of 12 on your Conditional Rezoning Application) THIS IS THE BREAK-DOWN ON EACH UNIT ASSOCIATED WITH 1300 KEMPSVILLE ROAD : GPIN: SUITE # 1) 14654901412570 101 2) 14654901412580 102 3) 14654901412590 X81 4) 14654901412600 X84 5) 1465901412610 X80 6) 14654901412628 185 SQ. FT. TRANSFER DATE 1153 sq. ft. 04-03-1985 634 sq.ft 06-12-1986 807 sq.ft 07-17-1986 533 sq.ft. 07-17-1986 814 sq. ft. 07-23-1986 925 sq.ft. 82-83-2803 7) 14654981412638 186 898 sq.ft. ASSOCIATES L. L. C. SAVAGE, SABOL, & VISSER Page 5 of 5 07-06-1995 4 OWNERS OF' UNIT GREGORY & CATHY SCHRUMPF DOUGLAS & PAM RAWLINS GREGORY & CATHY SCHRUMPF GREGORY & CATHY SCHRUMPF TOWNSEND BROWN JR. TOWNSEND BROWN NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD This is turning into a great media story. Three Orthodontist who have a total of five practices . They purchase a residential home right next door to their existing practice '(which is only open on Mon. & Wed.). They have enough money to pay an Attorney, who already has the know-how and knowledge on how things work at the Virginia Beach City Planning Commission and City Council Meetings. What a great advantage for them during these economical hard-times ; purchase a house in a stable middle-class neighborhood for $195,500.00 and then rezone it into an Office and turn the neighborhood which already has a problem with cut-through traffic , into a more dangerous place for our children (verse going directly across the street where there are leasing options available with ample parking) . No matter how you look at this picture (personal or business) . It can not be justified during these Economical times , when half the people feel like their government (the people we elected to represent us - starting at the local level and going all the way up) aren't listening to a word weJre saying! OUR HOMES ARE OUR SANCTUARIES; THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SHOULD DO EVERYTHING IN IT'S POWER TO PROTECT US FROM BUSINESS'S ENCROACHING INTO OUR SMALL PIECE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM... OUR HOME ... WHERE WE RAISE OUR FAMILIES, WHERE WE GATHER FOR THANKSGIVING AND CHRISTMAS, AND ALL THE OTHER CELEBRATIONS THAT MEAN SO MUCH TO FAMILIES. THE BIRTH OF OUR CHILDREN, BIRTHDAYS, GRADUATIONS, FOURTH OF THE JULY PICNICS, EASTER DINNERS, ETC Thank-You everyone and have a great weekend. Aug.27, 2ee9 / Thursday Mrs. Wanda Marie Whittaker (my view from my backyard is 5315 Bonneydale Road) 1221 Acredale Road Virginia Beach, Va. 23464 apache975@cox.net (757) 467-1245 5 Faith Christie ,- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Faith Christie Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:40 AM 'apache975' Heather Hartle RE: Regarding:"New Site Plans" & "Elevation" . Photo's New First Colonial Road Asociates LLC - CRZ-2009.doc Good Morning Ms. Whitaker, I've attached the Tr3ffic Engineering report for the request. Heather Hartle in Traffic Engineering is the engineer reviewing the projects. She should be able to assist you with your traffic concern. I've left a copy of -:he new site and elevation plans for you up front with our receptionist. I will e-mail a copy to you once the plans have been scanned into the report. My evaluation is not complete and ~Jill not be available to the applicant or the public until Friday, September 4th. I wiL e-mail you a copy at that time. The length of time it has taken to get the project ready for a public hearing is not unusual particularly since the project has opposition. I will not be in tomorrow - have to go back to the doc for my ear:-) Have a wonderful weekend and let me know if there is anything else you need. Faith Christie, CZA, CBO Planner, City of Virginia Beach 2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 757-385-6379 -----Original Message----- From: apache975 [mailto:apache975@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:16 AM To: Faith Christie Subject: Regarding:"New Site Plans" & "Elevation" . Photo's Hello Mrs. Christie, August 19 , 2009 (Wednesday) You missed my Friday call (aw, that's sweet, I'll be sure to call you this Friday, if I'm not on the third deck somewhere doing Crafts :) . Sorry about your swimmers ear, or, should I feel sorry for the company your entertaining ( family:) ? Thank-you for the up-date on the "New Site Plans" and the "Elevation" report (?). Mrs. Christie, could you please send me a copy of the traffic analysis report (the increase in trips/traffic this type of Office will cause in Acredale / Bonneydale Road)? Obviously, this is going to make a major impact on the already over-burdened traffic we Acredale residence face on a daily bases (especially Bonneydale Road - I'm currently trying to gather all the accident repol'ts that have occurred on Bonneydale Road - LOTS!) _, but we need the facts. So we can presl~nt the FACTS at the Planning Commission Hearing .50 far the only people with all the facts are Mr. Nutter (their attorney - he seems like a really nice man) ana pernaps you. Inere"s notnlng more numl~latlng tnen oelng aSKea queStlOn tnat you can t intelligently answer (well... actually there are) but I won't go there :) Also, could you please mail me the "New Site Plans" and "Evaluation" report? I left a message on Mr. Nutter's voice mail this evening, requesting a copy of the New site Plans & Elevation report as well (the doctor's are right down the road, they could have left this new information on my porch, or) my door Obviously , we will be unable to meet with them until we have seen the "New Site Plan" & "Elevation" paper's. How can they honestly expect us to meet with them prior to examining the "New Site Plans" and "Evaluation" ? And this is getting down to the wire - 21 days left ? Mrs. Christie, this application process for the Rezoning of 5315 Bonneydale Road (from Acredale Residential -15 to Office - 1 Conditional). Is turning into what we would call an abuse of Virginia Beach Tax-Payers-hard-earned-money : Real-Estate Taxes) Personal Property taxes, General sales taxes, etc... fund departments like Planning, Lawyers on staff to assist, Etc...) Mr. Nutter is being paid by his clients: New First Colonial Road. This one Rezoning application has been going on since the end of April 2009. This re-zoning was deferred once (by them from what I understand). The second time (July 08,2009) it was taken of the agenda by you (the Planner). The new third date, has been set for: September 09, 2009. And now! Twenty days prior to Sept. 09)2009 ; The Planning Commission hearing. We have to research a "New Site Plan" and "Elevation"? Those who are opposing this encroachment into our Acredale Residence by petition, are getting very frustrated at what they see as an abuse of Virginia Beach Public Resources by the New First Colonial Associates. Keep in mind ... I'm just the messenger and one of the Acredale Residence who will have her large ; peaceful backyard -- My wooded-piece-of-the-country set-in-the-middle-of-the- city forever-changed-by-this-encroachment if approved. Mrs. Christie, you have a wonderful week. And once again, I thank-you for all you've done to help me in this process. You've been patient and so helpful. Wanda Marie Whittaker 1221 Acredale Road Virginia Beach) Va. 23464 467-1245 apache975~cox.net PS: Some photo's will be arriving at your e-mail shortly 2 Faith Christie \... From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: apache975 [apache975@cox.net] Thursday, August 20, 2009 1 :16 AM Faith Christie Regarding:"New Site Plans" & "Elevation" , Photo's New First Colonial @ 1300 Kempsville RD 3.ppt; New First Colonial @ 1300 Kempsville RD 2.ppt Hello Mrs. Christie, August 19 , 2009 (WedneSday) You missed my Friday call (aw, that's sweet, I'll be sure to call you this Friday, if I'm not on the third deck somewhere doing Crafts :) . Sorry about your swimmers ear, or, should I feel sorry for the company your entertaining ( family:) ? Thank-you for the up-date on the "New Site Plans" and the "Elevation" report (?). Mrs. Christie, could you please send me a copy of the traffic analysis report (the increase in trips/traffic thi; type of Office will cause in Acredale / Bonneydale Road)? Obviously, this is going to make a major impact on the already over-burdened traffic we Acredale residence face on a daily bases (especially Bonneydale Road - I'm currently trying to gather all the accident reports that have occurred on Bonneydale Road - LOTS!), but we need the facts. So we can present the FACTS at the Planning Commission Hearing .So far the only people with all the .=acts are Mr. Nutter (their attorney - he seems like a really nice man) and perhaps you. Thet'e's nothing more humiliating then being asked question that you can't intelligently answer (well... actually there are, but I won't go there :) Also, could you please mail me the "New Site Plans" and "Evaluation" report ? I left a message on Mr. Nutter's voice mail this evening, requesting a copy of the New site Plans & Elevation report as well (the doctor's are right down the road, they could have left this new information on my porch, or, my door Obviously , we will be unable to meet with them until we have seen the "New Site Plan" & "Elevation" paper's. How can they honestly expect us to meet with them prior to examining the "New Site Plans" and "Evaluation" ? And this is getting down to the wire - 21 days left ? Mrs. Christie, this Elpplication process for the Rezoning of 5315 Bonneydale Road (from Acredale Residential -15 to Office - 1 Conditional). Is turning into what we would call an abuse of Virginia BeEch Tax-Payers-hard-earned-money : Real-Estate Taxes, Personal Property taxes, General sales taxes, etc... fund departments like Planning, Lawyers on staff to assist, Etc...) Mr. Nutter is being paid by his clients: New First Colonial Road. This one Rezoning a~plication has been going on since the end of April 2009. This re-zoning was deferred once (by them from what I understand). The second time (July 08,2009) it was taken of the agenda by you (the Planner). The new third date, has been set for: September 09, 2009. And now! Twenty days prior to Sept. 09,2009 ; The Planning Commission hearing. We have to research a "New Site Plan" and "Elevation"? Those who are opposing this encroachment into our Acredale Residence by petition, are getting very frustrated at what they see as an abuse of Virginia Beach Public Resources by the New First Colonial Associates. 1 Keep in mind I'm just the messenger and one of the Acredale Residence who will have her large j peaceful backyard -- My wooded-piece-of-the-country set-in-the-middle-of-the- city... forever-changed-by-this-encroachment if approved. Mrs. Christie) you have a wonderful week. And once again) I thank-you for all you've done to help me in this process. You've been patient and so helpful. Wanda Marie Whittaker 1221 Acredale Road Virginia Beach) Va. 23464 467-1245 apache975~cox.net PS: Some photo's will be arriving at your e-mail shortly 2 Faith Christie '- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Faith Christie Monday, August 17, 2009 12:28 PM 'apache975' rj. nutter@troutmansanders.com RE: 5315 Bonneydale Road - Rezoning from R-15 to 0-1 Good Afternoon Ms. Whitaker, Sorry I missed your call Friday - I missed having you end my week with a cheerful send-off:-) Anyway, I've been out since Wednesday, 8/5, with family in town, and then swimmers ear. I did receive a package with a new site plan and new elevation from Mr. Nutter's office. I've left copies of both for you at the front desk. The application is scheduled for the September 9th Planning Commission meeting. The field trip with the Planning Commission will be September 3rd during hours of 9:00 am to Noon. The exact route has not been developed so I have no idea when they will come by during those hours. Please let me know if there is anything else you need. Faith Christie, CZA, CBO Planner, City of Virginia Beach 2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 757-385-6379 -- -- -Original MessagE!- ---- From: apache975 [maiJ.to:apache975@cox.net] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 5:01 PM To: Faith Christie Subject: 5315 Bonneyclale Road - Rezoning from R-15 to 0-1 Hello Mrs. Christie, August 14,2009 (Friday) I have a few questio~s regarding the application for rezoning (R-15 to 0-1) of the residential property at 5315 Bonneydale Road (Acredale Subdivision) . I left a message on your voice mail becalse I'm still having tech. problems with my Web-Mail and Outlook Express. Mrs. Christie) has "New First Colonial Road Associates" submitted any new development plans or "proffers" (what are "proffers" ?) ? Or, are they using the same development plans that were submitted with their application a few months ago (I have a copy of those)? I will need a copy of the new plans and any updated information regarding the application for Rezoning of the property at 5315 Bonneydale Road (Acredale Subdivision) in order to present accurate information to all those who are opposing this encroachment into our neighborhood When is the "walk-through" scheduled for ? Do they do the walk-through during the peak hours) where they will be able to see exactly what kind of a traffic problem already exist on Bonneydale Road / 1300 Kempsville Road due to the cutting through of traffic ; avoiding the Intersection of Indian River Road and Kempsville Road, also the Ferreyll Parkway & WaWa light ? Somebody mentioned something about a "Green-Belt" in regards to the 5315 Bonneydale Property. Do you know what this is ? If so, could you briefly explain what that means? Mrs. Christie, I would like to thank you for all that you have done to help me understand this whole process. I look forward to meeting you. 1 Faith Christie "" From: Sent: To: Subject: apache975 [apache975@cox.net] Monday, August 03, 2009 3:57 AM Faith Christie Fwd: Re: New First Colonial Road Associates Hello again Mrs. Christie, Could you please forward this to whoever it needs to be forwarded to? I have a long list of VB.GOV people. I want to make sure It's sent to the right people, preferable all those who are in agreement with all of us in Acredale who are opposing the rezoning of 5315 Sonneydale Road. Thank-You for your patience and ------------- ------------- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 3:13:18 -0400 From: apache975 <apache975@cox.net> To: Faith Christie <FChristi@vbgov.com> Subject: Re: New First Colonial Road Associates ---- Faith Christie <FChristi@vbgov.com> wrote: ------------- ------------- I understand you've met with the neighbors and have come to some sort of compromise. I will schedule the request for the September 9, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Please insure the site is properly posted by August 9th . New plans and or proffers must be submitted to me by August 10th. Faith Christie, CZA, CSO Planner, City of Virginia Beach 2405 Courthouse Drive, Room 115 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 757-385-6379 Hello Mrs. Christie, 3, 2009 August Hope you had a great weekend. Don't you just love rainy Monday's :) Thank-You for the courteous e-mail on the new "Planning Commission Meeting" (Sept.09,2009). I have no ideal who has talked to who, but no-one has talked to me. And I have surely not come to a compromise on this encroachment/rezoning into Acredale Subdivision (this is my home and my children's home) . I am still 100% opposed, as are all the primary- residential- Acredale- homeowners I have spoken with .The opposition to this rezoning/encroachment is gaining momentum and more residents are getting involved, we're just waiting for that" Rezoning" sign to be posted in the yard (August 9th or 10th, 2009). Regarding the "compromise" : Only two rentals adjacent to 5315 Bonneydale Road /Acredale Subdivision, that I can think of who have "compromised", (both are non-primary residents who are renting their Acredale property) . 1) The Yellow hou:;e : 5309 Bonneydale Road next to 5315 Bonneydale Road j a rental property purchased :Ln 2004 Within the last month there was a Remax- rental sign in the front yard; house has had a few renter's, prior to this recent rent-out 2) The people who hIve behind me : Mr. & Mrs. Lamb (wonderful, friendly people, and a very nice tenant renting the property) have rented-out their property on Kempsville Road every since I have lived here ( July/August of 1993). In other words ... that is not their primary residence (their bclckyard would be across the street from 5315 Bonneydale Road) . I have spoke with them about the encroachment/rezoning . Not verbatim, but I got the impression that Mrs. Lamb feels since property is blighted, the office 1 would be an improvement. I can understand having a opinion like that, when you're not living in the neighborhood next to the property being re-zoned - your tenanting is. The Orthodontic Grcup (Dr.Savage, Dr. Sabol, & Dr. Visser) /A.K.A. :"New First Colonial Road Associates,L.L.C." purchased the residential property on December 20,2007 for $195,500.00 (residential -15 at time of purchase) why haven't they made any improvements? They have had over 1 X years too make improvements on the property they owned/acquired. Their intentions when they purchased the residential home seem very clear and they took a gamble. What a great deal ($) for a business to purchase the residential property right next to their existing office (1300 Kempsville Road), then encroach/rezone to an Office -1. What business wouldn't want an opportunity like that? Acredale blighted property example : The house across the street from me on Acredale Road, was purchased and the old owner started expanding and then stopped. The house set for probable over a year in a blighted state due to the abandonment of the O'Nner and the bank not putting the house on the market . Many of us wanted to purchase that hom,: but for what ever the reason, they wouldn't put it up for sale , they let it sit, and what remodeling had been started, was rotting away due to incomplete exterior work and weather. When the house final went on the market , everyone was trying to purchase that property. The new owners, in less then six months have turned that place from a blighted eyesore, into a well kept home. And like most people in Acredale, they are continuously working on improving their home. The Ortho Group / A.I~.A. "New First Colonial Road Associates", could / and should put that home on the Real-Estate market; sell it, and re-coup their money, verse trying to encroach into a stable neighborhood and disrupt a whole subdivision . The fact that this is even being considered when the E~conomy and local small business's in this area are going out of business (Hence : All the ava:.lable leasing options ) makes no sense at all , there is no way to justify a rezoning in a stable neighborhood like Acredale. Might I point out : Acredale Subdivision is in thE~ heart of Kempsville. Every service we Acredale Residence need and want - is within 15 miles at the most. And that's using the back roads. I don't like to sound repetitive but this cannot be emphasized enough. How about the precedence this is sE!tting when so many small businesses are going-under due to the Economic Crisis . There are many leasing options available in major shopping developments right across the street from the purchased property in Acredale Subdivision (5315 Bonneydale Road) : KempsRiver Crossing (3 leasing options - "Harvey Lindsay # 640-8700"), Fordham shops at KempsRiver, and KempsRiver Center (4 leasing options -"Harvey Lindsay # 640-8700" ), and within 1.5 miles there is Providence Shopping development ( 3 leasing options available - "Breeden Realty # 486-1000" ) and Fairfield Shopping development ( 4 leasing options available - "Wheeler Real Estate # 627-9088") .. To encroach/rezone in a crime free - mature stable subdivision like Acredale, is not good for the hardworking taxpaying citizens and their children . What about all the traffic on Bonneydale road due to the cutting through of our neighborhood (our' kids cannot even ride their bikes during rush hour due too speeding cut-throughiers)? By cutting through Acredale Subdivision you avoid the MAJOR intersection of Indian River Road & Kempsville Road . Also, you avoid the light at the WAWAS(sp) & Ferrell (sp) parkway . 2 ..Traffic Calming Program : The City of Virginia Beach, Department of Public Works/ Traffic Engineering Division has instituted a pilot program to improve the quality of life to our heigh~orhood streets" . Acredale Subdivision has serious traffic problems already because we are a cut-through neighborhood. And as recently as March 10,2009 (section 21-230 of the city code of Virginia beach , " pertaining to Traffic Calming") the city amended : " any person who operates a motor vehicle in excess of the maximum speed limit established for any portion of the following highways located within the designated neighborhoods, on or after the following date, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction punishable by a prepaid fine of two hundred dollars, in addition to other penalties provided by law. No portion of the fine shall be suspended unless the court orders twenty hours of community service". "(2) Acredale: Andover Road; Langston Road; Bonneydale Road; Olive Road, Alton Road; Old Kempsville Road." So, by allowing a rezoning in Acredale which will result in a higher traffic volume on our already traffic burdened neighborhood (per the city) , is a blatant disregard for the homeowners of Acredale and the safety of our children as they play and walk to the bus stops. Once again , let me point out , there are ample leasing options available with ample parking to accommodate an office without jeopardizing the safety of the homeowners . And , without disrupting the quality of life that we in Acredale enjoy. Acredale is a very unique neighborhood, one of the best in Kempsville. Houses rarely go up for sale but when they do , they are not on the market long. The children in Acredale attend: Kempsville Elementary, Kempsville Middle and Kempsville High School, Excellent Schools! The only people this rezoning from residential 15 to Office 1 will benefit is : " New First Colonial Road Associates". This Orthodontic Group (Dr. Savage, Dr. Sabol & Dr. Visser) ; including the office space they occupy at 1300 Kempsville Road, have a total of 5 offices. PS. The property at 5315 Bonneydale Road is a house I see from my backyard . In Winter when leaves have fallen , I have very clear view of this property - this rezoning/encroachment will severely effect the peace and serenity I enjoy in my large, wooded, country-setting backyard . If this encroachment takes place , my backyard view, will be a well lit office and parking lot with strangers coming and going . My daughter and her friends will lose their privacy as they swim and play in our backyard. Pro's: For rezoning from residential to office in Acredale Subdivision: None I oppose this rezoning of 5315 Bonneydale Road in the Acredale Subdivision. Have a great day Mrs. Christie. Wanda Marie Whittaker 1221 Acredale Road Virginia Beach, VA. 23464 apache975@cox.net PS: Mrs. Christie, I am so sorry that this is so repetitive. I also apologize for the lack of orderly composition, and any, and all grammar and punctuation errors, but look at the time and please understand: I have 1- husband, 1- 23 year old who just came back from Iraq, l- is year old nephew staying with me for the summer, 1- 14 year old daughter and 2 dogs , and the list goes on and on ... : )============= 3 Faith Christie ..~ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Faith Christie Monday, August 03, 2009 8:40 AM 'apache975' rj.nutter@troutmansanders.com; Stephen J. White; Karen Lasley RE: Re: New First Colonial Road Associates Good Morning Ms. Whj,taker) I need to clear up c'ne item first. I misunderstood Mr. Nutter when he said he had met with the neighbors. I assumed he meant the proposed meeting with you and the civic league. He advised me that they have only met with the adjacent neighbor at 5389 Bonneydale Rd.) so that is my fault. I understand they are still waiting for you to contact them for a meeting to discuss the project. I will make sure your concerns are brought to the attention of staff at our agenda review meeting) and also provide a copy of this correspondence to the Planning Commission at the appropriate time. Faith Christie) CZA) CBO Planner) City of Virginia Beach 2485 Courthouse Drive) Room 115 Virginia Beach) VA 23456 757-385-6379 -----Original Message----- From: apache975 [mailto:apache975@cox.net] Sent: Monday) August 03) 2009 3:57 AM To: Faith Christie Subject: Fwd: Re: Ne~ First Colonial Road Associates Hello again Mrs. Christie ) Could you please fo~~ard this to whoever it needs to be forwarded to? I have a long list of VB.GOV people. I want to make sure It's sent to the right people) preferable all those who are in agreement with all of us in Acredale who are opposing the rezoning of 5315 Bonneydale Road. Thank-You for your patience and ------------- ------------- Date: Monj 3 Aug 2009 3:13:18 -0400 From: apache975 <apache975@cox.net> To: Faith Christie <FChristi@vbgov.com> Subject: Re: New Fir~;t Colonial Road Associates ---- Faith Christie <FChristi@vbgov.com> wrote: ------------- ------------- I understand you've met with the neighbors and have come to some sort of compromise. I will schedule the request for the September 9) 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Please insure the site is properly posted by August 9th . New plans and or proffers must be submitted to me by August 10th. Faith Christiej CZAj CBO Planner) City of Virginia Beach 2485 Courthouse Drive) Room 115 1 Faith Christie r_ From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: apache975 [apache975@cox.net] Friday, July 10, 20094:41 PM Faith Christie 5315 Bonneydale Road File0010.jpg; File0012.jpg; File0013.jpg; File0014.jpg Hello Mrs. Christi, I contacted Mr. Nutter (lawyer) and Dr. Sabol's voice mail on : 07-10-09(Friday). I left message stating we oppose encroachment / rezoning , but we are willing to listen and discuss their "updated/revised" plans --- once they submit them to the Planning Office. I am having tech. problems with my webmail , so if the attachments do not arrive, please e-mail me and I will immediately mail them out. Thank-you for all your assistance and patients :) Have a wonderful weekend. Mrs. Wanda Marie Whittaker (tax payer :) 1221 Acredale Subdivision (since 1993) apache975@cox.net 467-1245 1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No_ DF-7391 DATE: October 14, 2009 TO: FROM: Mark D. Stiles /~"-., :' '\ B. Kay WiISO~ DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; New First Colonial Road Associates, LLC The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 27, 2009. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated February 28, 2009 and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please f,ael free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW/ka Enclosure cc: Kathleen Hassen Document Prepared By: Troutman Sanders LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of this 28th day of February, 2009, by and between NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES. L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Grantor"), the current owner of that certain property located in the City of Virginia Beach, as more particularly described below; and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee"). WIT N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, the Grantor is the current owner of that certain property located in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia identified by GPIN 1465 - 49 - 2069 - 0000, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"). WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the classification of the Property from R-15 to Conditional 0-1, WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes, including mixed-use purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict, and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the change and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned 0-1 are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered in writing in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as part of the proposed conditional amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for in the existing 0-1 zoning districts by the existing City's Zoning Ordinance (CZO), the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the new Zoning Map relative to the Property, all of which have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning; and WHEREAS, said conditions having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, such conditions shall GPIN NO. 1465 - 49 - 2069 - 0000 continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Property covered by such conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are amended or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and executed by the record owner of the subject Property at the time of recordation of such instrument; provided, further, that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of the ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Gran1ee advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion of quid pro QUO for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that these proffers (collectively, the "Proffers") shall constitute covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, its heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title, r,amely: 1. The Grantor shall develop the Property in substantial conformity with the conceptual site plan prepared by Porterfield Design Center, entitled "Concept Plan, 5315 Bonneydale Road for Savage, Sabol & Visser, LTD", dated October 13, 2008 (the "Concept Plan"), a copy of which is on file with the Department of Planning and has been exhibited to the City Council. 2. The Grantor shall develop the structures on the Property in substantial conformity with the conceptual site elevations prepared by Porterfield Design Center, entitled "Concept Elevations, 5315 Bonneydale Road for Savage, Sabol & Visser, LTD", dated October 13,2008 (the "Site Elevations"), a copy of which is on file with the Department of Planning and has been exhibited to the City Council. 3. The Grantor shall not develop any structure on the Property in excess of twenty- two feet (22') in height. 4. The Grantor shall provide landscaping and fencing on the Property in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan and Site Elevations. 5. Further conditions lawfully imposed by applicable development ordinances may be required by the Grantee during detailed site plan and/or subdivision review and administration 2 I' of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer to the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the conditional zoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. The Grantor covenants and agrees that (1) the Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia shall be vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bringing oflegal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, the CZO or this Agreement, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shall show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject Property on the map and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Department of Planning and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and indexed in the name of the Grantor and Grantee. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank. Separate Signature Page to Follow.] 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantor executes this Agreement as of the date first writt,~n above. GRANTOR: NEW FIRST COLONIAL ROAD ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: ~a - Name'~1S\Ll'7T VIS,,~ E;L Title: SE ~'2..!.~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /J~ay of February, 2009, by 13r~*JL, S5e-r , who is personally known to me or has produced \kL, 1)( i vas \ i~as identification in his capacity as -ecre..-ktr of New First Colonial Road Associates, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, 0' ehalf f the company. 1/ (-- Notary Public My Commission Expires: [NOTARIAL SEAL/STAMP] Registration Number: ~~64-c:x::) 4 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereunto belonging, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Lot 34, as shown on that certain plat entitled "Section 5, of ACREDALE", property of JOHN L. & OLIVE ESTELLE WOOD, Kempsville District _ Princess Anne Co., Va", which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 27, at page 61. IT BEING the same property conveyed to New First Colonial Road Associates, L.L.C. by deed from Nicolas Carpio, Jr. and Virginia G. Carpio dated December 3,2007, recorded in the Clerk's Office aforesaid as Instrument Number 2007122000167841 o. 5 I I II ~ - 40- Item v'K.9. PLANNING ITEM # 58923 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Dyer, City Council DEFERRED to the City Council Session of July 14, 2009, Ordinance upon application of ENDEA VOR ENTERPRISES, LLC for a Chan~e ot'Zoning District Classification, from AG-] and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B-lA Limited Easiness District and pol Preservation District at Ho/fand Road and Chestnut Oak Way: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION. FROM AG-J AND AG-2 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS TO CONDITIONAL B-JA LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT AND pol PRESERVATION DISTRICT AT HOLLAND ROAD AND CHESTNUT OAK WA Y: Ordinance upon application of ENDEA VOR ENTERPRISES, LLC for a Change of Zoniml District Classification, from AG-J and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B-JA Limited Business District and P-J Preservation District at Holland Road and Chestnut Oak Way DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Voting: J j -0 (By Consent) Council Membe,s Voting Aye: Glenn R. Davis, William R, "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E. Diezel, Robert M Dyer. Barbara M Henley. Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Mayor William D. SEssoms. Jr., John E, Uhrin, Ron A. Villanueva. Rosemary Wilson and Jc.mes L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Member~' Absent: None June 9, 2009 II iii' .55 - Item V-L.6. PLANNING ITEM # 59055 Upon motion by Councilman Dyer, seconded by Councilman Uhrin, City Council DEFERRED to the City Council Session of August 11, 2009, Ordinance upon application of ENDEA VOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.c. for a Chanfle of Zoning District Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B~lA Limited Business District and P.l Preservation District at Chestnut Oak Way. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ENDEA VOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.c. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-l AND AG.2 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS TO CONDITIONAL B-IA LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT AND P-l PRESERVATION DISTRICT AT CHESTNUT OAK WAY. Ordinance upon application of ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L,C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-l and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B-1A Limited Business District and P-l Preservation District at Chestnut Oak Way. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 7-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Glenn R. Davis, William R. "Bill" DeSteph, Harry E, Diezel, Robert M Dyer Barbara M Henley, Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and John E, Uhrin Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Ron A, Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood July 14, 2009 III r - 54- Item V-K.5. PLANNING ITEM # 59103 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones. seconded by Councilman Dyer, City Council DEFERRED INDEFINITELY an Ordinance upon application of ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-J and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional B-JA Limited Business and P.l Preservation District at Chestnut Oak Way: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF ENDEA VOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-J AND AG-2 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS TO CONDITIONAL B-JA LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT AND P-l PRESERVATION DISTRICT ATCHESTNUTOAK WAY. Ordinance upon application of ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.c. for a Chanfle of Zoninfl District Classification from AG-J and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B-JA Limited Business District and P-l Preservation District at Chestnut Oak Way. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE Voting: 9-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Glenn R. Davis, Robert M Dyer. Barbara M Henley, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Mayor William D, Sessoms, Jr" John E. Uhrin, Ron A, Villanueva, Ro:semary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Member~, Absent: William R. "Bill" DeSteph and Harry E. Diezel August J J, 2009 I II ~~~~.~~~~~ :;...,-~ '~,\! f~ \i', ~~~:~~~~19 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., Chanae of Zonina District Classification, AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B-1A Limited Business District and P-1 Preservation District, east side of Holland Road, approximately 120 feet south of Chestnut Oak Way. PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT. MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 . Background: The applicant proposes to change the zoning of a 19.94-acre site currently zoned Agricultural to Conditional B-1A Limited Business District and P-1 Preservation District. The purpose of the rezoning is to develop a commercial center and a child care facility on 14.76 acres of the site, with the remaining 5.18 acres being dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for natural area preservation. The City Council deferred this application at the request of the applicant on June 9, July 14, and August 11. . Considerations: The proposal depicts four buildings in two phases with a combination of professional offices, retail, and a stand-alone daycare. The first phase will include two one-story buildings, one of which will consist of restaurant space, services, and offices and the second, a daycare facility. The second phase of the development will include a one-story and a two-story office and service building. The buildings are located such that two buildings are toward the front of the property, an office building is positioned adjacent to an adjoining neighboring park, and the daycare is in a recessed portion of the site to the north. Where possible, existing trees will be retained, and additional infilllandscape planting will be provided to buffer adjacent neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan states that where residential and commercial uses adjoin one another, the preferred land use relationship should reflect higher density residential and lower intensity commercial uses (p 90). Land uses proposed for infill sites as well as their density, material, height, setback, yard area and other design considerations should complement and reinforce the predominant physical character of the surrounding area (p 91 ). ENDEAVOR Et\ TERPRISES, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 In the past, the site may have been suitable for rezoning that would have allowed development of single-family residential development consistent with the adjoininq neighborhoods. Under current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance provisions pertaining to AICUZ constraints, however, such development is no longer acceptable; any residential development would have to be at thH density allowed by the existing Agricultural zoning. The unsuitability of the applicant's property for residential development at a density consistent with the adjol ning neighborhoods is demonstrated by City Council's 2006 denial of the applicant's request to rezone the portion of the site at the existing terminus of Chestnut Oak Way for five single-family lots. Based on this constraint, Staff finds the applicant's desire to provide a non- residential use intended to serve the surrounding area is appropriate. The applicant initially, however, proposed plans that introduced a level of non- residential development that was, in Staff's opinion, too intense for this location. Staff supported neighborhood serving uses such as daycare, office, personal services and a limited range of retail businesses, but the intensity of the applicant's original proposal, was not compatible with the surrounding residential area. The applicant, however, after extensive discussions with the surrounding neighborhoods and with Staff, has revised the proposal to eliminate the retail compommt of the development, as well as limited the restaurant to one that does not servH alcohol. With these modifications, the development is now at an appropriate and compatible intensity and Staff can recommend that the request for a Conditional Change in Zoning be approved. . Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-1 to approve this request as proffered (the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval was based on the original plan). . Attachments: Staff Review and Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. I' .c., ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Agenda Item 22 May 13, 2009 Public Hearing (REVISED FOR NOVEMBER 10 CITY COUNCIL HEARING) LLC .c., STAFF PLANNER: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: ChanQe of Zoninq District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional B-1A Limited Community Business District and P-1 Preservation District. ADDRESS I DESCRIPTION: Property located on the east side of Holland Road approximately 120 feet south of Chestnut Oak Way. GPIN: 14954173360000 14955195180000 portion of 14955126960000 ELECTION DISTRICT: PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: AICUZ: Total site:19.94 acres 70 to 75 dB Ldn Proposed B-1A site: 14.76 acres Proposed P-1 site: 5.18 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to rezone a portion of existing agricultural properties for community-oriented commercial uses and to rezone the remaining portion for natural area preservation, dedicating that area to the City of Virginia Beach. The property is one of the few infill properties remaining in the area and is surrounded by suburban neighborhoods constructed in the past 15 years. One of the parcels involved in this rezoning had been before Planning Commission and City Council for a Conditional Rezoning request for five (5) single family lots in a 70 -75 dB DNL AICUZ. As residential structures within this AICUZ are designated as 'not compatible' with Navy flight operations associated with NAS Oceana, the City Council denied the rezoning request on June 27,2006. ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10,2009 City Council Page 1 The applicant then appealed the decision of the City Council to the Circuit Court, which upheld the Council's decision. The applicant's current proposal incorporates input from the neighborhood and staff. The proposal depicts four buildings in two phases with a combination of professional offices and personal services, a restaurant (no alcohol), clnd a stand-alone daycare. The first phase will include two buildings of one single story with the restaurant, services, and offices. The second building is a single-story daycare. The second phase of the developml3nt will include a single-story building and a two-story building consisting of office and service uses. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to road improvements along Holland Road. There is a creek running through the length of the site and the applicant's plan uses the creek as an amenity, placing a multipurpose trail along one side and the access road on the other side in a cleared area. Building placement consists of two buildings toward the front of the property, an office building positioned adjacent to an adjoining neighboring park, and daycare in a recessed portion of the site to the north. Where possible, existing trees will be retained, and additional infill landscape planting will be provided to buffer adjacent neighborhoods. The designs of the four proposed buildings are similar in materials and style. The building design integrates trac itional elements with a European accent. The exterior fa~ade incorporates a cultured stone base with an exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) applied above the stone. The use of metal hip roofs and flat roofs Gapped with an EIFS molded crown accent the buildings. The predominant building material colors consist of neutral tones. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped wooded vacant site SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZOiNING: North: . Residential single-family subdivision, open space I R-10 Residential District, P-1 Preservation District . Residential single-family subdivision I R-7.5 Residential District . Undeveloped property I AG-1 Agricultural District . Across Holland Road, a single-family subdivision I R-5D Residential District wi PD-H2 overlay South: East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The site is undeveloped with large stands of trees. There is a branch of West Neck Creek flowing down the middle of the site from Holland Road to West Neck Creek. There is a Southern Watershed buffer on either side of the ditch. A portion of the site along one side of the ditch (in the buffer area) has been cleared by the City to access the waterway for cleaning and maintenance. ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 2 Ii IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (MTP) / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP): Holland Road in the vicinity of this application is a narrow two-lane undivided minor suburban arterial. This section of roadway is shown on the Master Transportation Plan as a divided roadway within a 125-foot right-of-way. The Holland Road Phase VI roadway project will widen Holland Road to a four-lane divided roadway along the front of the proposed development. This VDOT administered project is currently in the right-of-way acquisition stage. Due to reduced state funding, the construction start date has been moved beyond VDOT's current Six-Year Plan. TRAFFIC: Holland Road Existing Land Use 2 -20 ADT 3 Proposed Land Use - 4,337 ADT 1 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by AG-2 zoning 3 as defined by 10,000 SF day care center, 40,000 SF office, 20,900 SF retail & 5,000 SF restaurant Present Volume 17,300 ADT 1 (2007) 16,500 ADT 1(2008) Present Capacity Generated Traffic Street Name 15,000 ADT 1 (Level of Service "0") - 16,200 ADT 1 (Level of Service "E") It is important to note that the Holland Road Phase VI project does not include a median crossover on Holland Road at the proposed access point for the proposed Village Centre at Holland Creek, opposite Barberry Lane. The current arrangement of median crossovers included on the Holland Road plans would prevent the City of Virginia Beach from adding a median crossover at the Village Centre access point, meaning that when the Holland Road project is eventually completed as a divided roadway, the Village Centre development will be served with a right-in/right-out access arrangement. Traffic from the north on Holland Road bound for this development would have to make a U-turn at Sugar Maple Drive to return north towards the site. Traffic leaving the development headed southbound on Holland Road would be required to travel north on Holland Road, 1000 feet to Saville Garden Way to make a U-turn to access southbound Holland Road. Public Works Engineering/Proiect Management Comments The proposed development will impact the Holland Road Phase VI roadway project. A right-of-way, temporary slope easement, and utility easement are needed for the completion of the project. These areas are not shown in the conceptual plan. As per the VDOT right-of-way section, parcels 060 (Endeavor Enterprises) and 061 (George McCoy) right-of-way for Holland Phase IV project were already acquired. For further coordination, developer to contact the City of Virginia Beach Holland Road Phase VI project manager, Alex Paragas at 385- 4131. Public Works EngineeringfTraffic Engineerina Comments Traffic Engineering has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) dated November 14, 2008 and the Conceptual Right-of-Way Improvements Plan dated December 10,2008 for the Village Centre at Holland Creek development and is conditionally approving the Conclusions of the TIS with the following comments/exceptions: 1. The TIS incorrectly states that the daily traffic volume on this section of Holland Road was 12,800 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2007. The correct daily traffic count on this portion of Holland Road was 17,300 vpd in 2007 and recently completed traffic counts showed 16,500 vpd for 2008. ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 3 2. The TIS concludes that a traffic signal will be warranted at the access point on Holland Road at approximately 70% site build out. Traffic Engineering cannot support that conclusion because the traffic signal warrants analysis is incomplete. While we can agree that the one hour warrant will be met, tile data presented in the TIS was not sufficient to determine that the eight hour and four hour warrants are met. Traffic Engineering believes that a complete traffic signal warrants analysis would show that only the one hour traffic signal warrant would be met, and therefore a traffic signal would not be considered based on projected traffic volumes. Traffic Engineering will however require the developer to post a traffic signal bond during the site plan stage to cover the full cost of a traffic signal if it is warranted based on actual traffic volumes. 3. The TIS reports the future level of service at the access point intersection with Holland Road and Barberry Lane as a signalized intersection, but does not include the level of service as an unsignalized intersE!ction. Traffic Engineering has run the unsignalized intersection analysis for the intersection based on full development of the site and Holland Road still as a two-lane undivided roadway. This analysis shows that in 2012, the left turn movement out of the development onto southbound Holland Road will operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F in the AM and PM peak hours. The Barberry Lane approach to the intersection will also operate at a LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. The Barberry Lane clpproach would operate at a LOS D in the AM and PM in 2012 as a three legged intersection if the Vii age Centre development was not built. Public Works Enaineerina I Stormwater Comments Stormwater management facilities appear to be too small to accommodate the total development. If infiltration type facilities are to be used, soil analysis and boring should be done to ensure adequate permeability and separation frorl the seasonal high groundwater table. Wetlands delineation is to be performed to prevent impacts to wet ands. Coordinate the stormwater management plan with the Holland Road Phase VI project. WATER: This site must connect to City water. There is a 16-inch City water main in Holland Road fronting the site. SEWER: This site must connect to City sanitary sewer. City sanitary sewer does not front the proposed parcel. Plans and bonds will be required for any construction extensions of the City sanitary sewer system. An engineering hydraulic analysis of Pump Station #571 and the sanitary sewer collection system is required to ensure future f ows can be accommodated. There is an 8-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main in a public utility easemert crossing a portion of the property. There is an 8-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main in Bald Eagle Road. Tllere is an 8-inch City gravity sanitary sewer main in Sugar Maple Drive. FIRE: No Fire Department comments at this time. Comments will be provided during site plan review. EMS: A turn lale is encouraged for this proposal. Additional comments may be included at site plan review. Recommendation: Staff recomme'1ds approval. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 4 II Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan states that where residential and commercial uses adjoin one another, the preferred land use relationship should reflect higher density residential and lower intensity commercial uses (p 90). Land uses proposed for infill sites as well as their density, material, height, setback, yard area and other design considerations should complement and reinforce the predominant physical character of the surrounding area (p 91). Evaluation: This applicant has attempted to combine a balanced network of buildings, parking, and open space. The layout has established buffers around the creek bed, as well as buffering around the perimeter of the development against the residential neighborhoods. The applicant's intent is to provide a limited commercial development that can support the needs of the nearby residential neighborhoods without impacting adjacent uses. In the past, the site may have been suitable for rezoning that would have allowed development of single- family residential development consistent with the adjoining neighborhoods. Under current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance provisions pertaining to AICUZ constraints, however, such development is no longer acceptable; any residential development would have to be at the density allowed by the existing Agricultural zoning. The unsuitability of the applicant's property for residential development at a density consistent with the adjoining neighborhoods is demonstrated by City Council's 2006 denial of the applicant's request to rezone the portion of the site at the existing terminus of Chestnut Oak Way for five single-family lots. Based on this constraint, Staff finds the applicant's desire to provide a non-residential use intended to serve the surrounding area is appropriate. The applicant initially, however, proposed plans that introduced a level of non-residential development that was, in Staff's opinion, too intense for this location. Staff supported neighborhood serving uses such as daycare, office, personal services, and a limited range of retail businesses, but the intensity of the applicant's original proposal, was not compatible with the surrounding residential area. The applicant, however, after extensive discussions with the surrounding neighborhoods and with Staff, has revised the proposal to eliminate the retail component of the development, as well as limited the restaurant to one that does not serve alcohol. With these modifications, the development is now at an appropriate and compatible intensity and Staff can recommend that the request for a Conditional Change in Zoning be approved. PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 1 07(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (91 07(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER 1: When the portion of the Property zoned B-1A is developed, it shall be developed and landscaped substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT & LANDSCAPE PLAN OF VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLADN CREEK," prepared by Ionic Dezign Studios and MSA, P.C., dated ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 5 09/29/09, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Conceptual Site Plan"). PROFFER 2: When the property is developed, the exterior building materials, colors and architectural design elements of the four (4) buildings designated on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be substantially as depicted on the exhibits entitled "VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLAND CREEK- TYPICAL RETAIL BUILDING ELEVATION; VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLAND CREEK - DAYCARE ELEVATION; VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLAND CREEK - OFFICE BUILDING ELEVATION" dated 03/04/09, prepared by Ionic Dezign Studios, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Building Elevations"). PROFFER 3: When the Property is developed, the Grantor shall make those road improvements to Holland Road as depicted on the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Right of Way Improvement Plan for Village Center at Holland Creek", datecl 12/09/08, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Right of Way Improvements"). PROFFER 4: When the Property is developed, if the improvement and widening of Holland Road to four (4) through lanes of vehicular capacity from its intersection with Dam Neck Road, south to its intersection with Crestwood Drive has not commenced, only the buildings designated "#1, Single Story Daycare 9,315 square feet" and "#2, Single Story 25,000 square feet total" on the Conceptual Site Plan may be developed. No occupancy of the buildings designated "#3, Single Story 9,000 square feet" and "#4, 2-Story Office 17,000 square feet" on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be permitted until (a) improvement and widening of Holland Road to four (4) through lanes of vehicular capacity from Dam Neck Road to its intersection with Crestwood Drive has been completed (P1ase II); or (b) July 1, 2020 whichever shall occur first. PROFFER 5: The Grantor shall not be required to install that portion of 8' Privacy Fencing along the northwestern section of the property's perimeter, as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, until construction plans for Building "#3, Single Story ~I,OOO square feet total" are approved by Grantee. PROFFER 6: The Building designated "#2, Single Story 25,000 square feet total" on the Conceptual Site Plan shall have (a) no more than 4,500 square feet of space occupied restaurant uses, none of which may serve alcoholic beverages; (b) no more than 7,500 square feet of space occupied by anyone of the following service uses permitted in tile B-1A zoning district: veterinary establishments; financial institutions (which shall not include 'pay day' loan services which shall not be permitted); funeral homes; repair services; dry cleaning agencies; medical and clental clinics and offices; museums and art galleries; commercial printers; personal service establishments, other than those listed separately; and (c) all remaining space in Building #2 shall be occupied by cffice uses. No retail uses shall be permitted on the property. PROFFER 7: The building designated "#3, single-story 9,000 square feet total" on the Conceptual Site Plan shall have (a) no more than 5,000 square feet of space occupied by any of the service uses listed in the preceeding proffer numbered 6; and (b) all remaining space in Building #3 shall be occupied by office uses. No retail uses shall be permitted on the Property. ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, lLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 6 I' PROFFER 8: Prior to submittal of a Site Development Plan for the Buildings designated as "#3, Single Story 9,000 square feet total" and "#4, 2-story Office 17,000 square feet" (i.e. Phase II), Grantor shall prepare and submit a "Supplemental Traffic Impact Study" to the Director of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. PROFFER 9: The Grantor proffers that Building "#4, 2-story office 17,000 square feet total" shall only be used for office uses and not be used for qny retail, restaurant, or service uses, except those service uses which may be permitted in the 0-2 Office District. PROFFER 10: The Grantor proffers that Building "#1, Single Story Daycare 9,315 square feet" shall only be used for educational/child care daycare of office uses and shall not be used for any retail, restaurant or service uses, except those services uses which may be permitted in the 0-2 Office District. PROFFER 11: When the Property is developed, only one (1) freestanding monument style sign may be erected on the Property, constructed with a base matching the material and predominant color of the buildings as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. All building mounted signage shall be channel letters on a raceway (i.e. no block signs) and only the lettering may be illuminated. No signage may use L.E.D. or a similar electronic display unless it is both (a) permitted in the B-1A Zoning District; and (b) approved in advance by the Director of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. PROFFER 12: When the Property is developed, the dumpsters depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be screened / housed in a masonry structure (3 sides) with the exterior surface matching the building material and color. Dumpsters shall not be tipped /emptied before 8:30 a.m. nor after 8:30 p.m. PROFFER 13: The hours of daily operation for any educational/child daycare use in the building designated "#1, Single Story 9,315 square feet Daycare" on the Conceptual Site Plan shall not commence prior to 6:00 a.m. nor conclude subsequent to 7:00 p.m. PROFFER 14: All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from the adjoining property. The development shall use "The Largent "lighting fixtures and a complete photometric plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval during detailed site plan review. PROFFER 15: When the Property is developed, the Grantor shall install and maintain an 8' wide multi-purpose trail from Holland Road through the open space within the developed portion of the property, through the open space at the eastern end of the center and terminating at the 5.18 acres of land to be zoned P-1 Preservation District substantially as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. The Grantor shall dedicate to the Grantee a pedestrian access easement over the multi-purpose trail and create a second pedestrian walkway from the multi-purpose trail to the small City owned park which abuts the southern boundary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 7 PROFFER 16: Prior to issuclnce of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the Property, the Grantor shall dedicate to the Grantee, the 5.18 acre portion of the property to be zoned P-1 Preservation District. PROFFER 17: Prior to the Grantee issuing Site Plan approval for any of the development on the Property as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, Grantors shall have recorded a private deed restriction enforceable by the record title holders to Lots numbers 26 through 33 as depicted on the plat of Subdivision of Greenwood (recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 280, at Page 84), dedicating a Preservation Easement 35 feet in width over that portion of the Property which adjoins and runs parallel to tho southern boundary of the referenced lots. This Preservation Easement shall require that all trees and ve!Jetation within this area remain undisturbed if the remainder of the parcel is used for any purpose othH than residential use. PROFFER 1;B: Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City Agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. STAFF COM MENTS: The proffers listed above are acceptable in respect to the level of quality of the project. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated October 5, 2009, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. NOTE: FurthE!r 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 applicanl~ is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department ~'Jr crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) com:epts and strategies as they pertain to this site. ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 8 I II Ii ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, lLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 9 AERIAL OF SITE LOCATION _ _.-.'-----.~--.--.-.--'---.-:-'c:: -.,.-.--'- -,,~---' . ,\, . c;p' ,~--~- _ " \ \\\\ ','\ cc cc ,::h. \ \ .11, ro. n '\ \' \' " 'C~ \' q: ():;J c;P'--''' \ \ \l r---,.- ._ " h\ .~- 'p, I ,!l I rr:, cP~' ____ '--' fb r ' ; ,'CO Or- --"'-";':'if:-----~,.. ~__ ~<\, \r \...1 '-J ",.... ~ .;- F'?Yo . . M. LQ:u __.~..t r'd'", CJ'",. ~;J. ~ 'eY' C J ~ b . lJ~4:b '11{': '0> 0 ," \1' 'rr.:;' ' 0 " '0: ~>J' \, $ ~,O J3 ",,' -1" ,~J$'b I"p ~ D~ b, " \ '.0 (p 00'" ~,~ g'-(n I : q> 0 ~0>,;J',q CP,(A,CP 0 % .' ,,-, 0 0 Q''' " l e} t/'--,l\ CP, "aJt~~Sl~",Sr'~w" ' /\CJ,_} (? _0 j. \.. L.._--~p vN\J . "")>-. ?'J' " ,\. , c-~ ..-'-",'~. , 'r< U '" n ' .. \ . , .' i , . " Q 0' " U ~ · .. \ ~'" : )", ! ,lOa ~,,----..--,.-. 0 " \ f" ' ~..2,- - 1 0 \ Q-, ,\ \ \ ~\~ ~l ;Ii\ rs;;~;~~~t.~, ,~\~, '~'-":' . ,1\\ \\. ," "'~ S:.;n 6' ,g' I. ' C),Q\, . , ,\11.., . . , \ ' ' ~~\., '"', .:1" II, ~ \~ \\\H\ II \~. ~p'bi~'~ ~~' .\\ "t\\' ~i\\ 1\\ ~\ \\ \\1.\ \'i n II' ~~~~tf~6~\ ~ffi" '~'" 1,\11 ~. \\\ Q,~ \ ~, \ "I :;;,' , !II Ood .p'~ ~, " . I"; W <6' \~ v CO' ~ \ 11'1' ~ \\\1 :J d ,~r'),'D I fg' , ~ } I, t '~\,; \\ ~ll; w3\ ~~ l~~~' ~~~ \ F..\\i.'r? ~ ." ~Q%~~ '~!r-~) /~:~~~, ; \\\\\\ . ':0 \\\\ it' \1 0000: q "t'lll 1b1' '?, "@ .~;: '\''\1 \ ,rn;\ .. i~' 0 0 ~:?:'~dq,: -A ,SIA, \"" \~:=;\ l~ \~ ill ~) ~~ gyl ~g ~m h. "II \ ~ 0 ~',Q, 0 \\, \ 'Q I 1;9 \ "I In: ,8<I<yo '" 0 ;-:;' cFA.'. \,' S . 0 ~ ['G'I 1\ ' 1 !' 8::)" i,-( .", ,',Jon I>- \ I 0 -"J '" "-- ,i I~ ~ b ".)( ~ 10 I.. ,~ P<' "Va' It( "..~,> o:.,)tj, ~ Q\ ~_,'\ \ 1<9' ",,_~.:Jl ,,; 6% " .! 'I$', , '<dI I ' ~.~c, ' Y' ~ l~ /, 'u" ~.... . \, . P'<'O 0' ~'--. ~ oL."" ~ G \\\\. " ,Ii l3"" 6, '\ . 0 ~ rf-t' "'F'" 1')' :;, ~ 'h'\ ,It\:, . '? ,0, B ,I I; 16, ' 'Ii,., , _ " tli .\~ \ ci g\s'J', p;~ · t\l\ 1'\', ~ !. ~ . l'" n i ,::0 Q .0 tit ' il;\;,g, ~ '; l ~ '~i ,I L \ Q ,0 \'i .. '.' ~ \1 , 9 ~ ~ \dl:i.1l '\\ :: 7'..;:.;:., ~~' ~ ~ \ '~' \" i ~ ~ ~ !! \ \ II I' " ^-' ,'" ", _ " ",. , _" v' J . ,- " ' \'i ~ ... .' ., _, I . ,\ n. -;::;: ',I' ,,'. ~ = ~ ~ i _1-__~.__-'::-.-J ,!\..1 : g ~__a"..<J)\' 0- ' > · - / -,-~~-=.""" ;;::_"::::.:::.. 't~~f~' \' - "-:::0=---' "-- ___-= ,\'Il""~ ,.. , .~ ~ l ~\'H ..,---",,,,,,,,,,",","'" ..,,~--~,"", "--" ?;~""t~~ ' ~i u'tlt.: ~ 't%, N . CJ.~ ;; :j"1 ~ ,.h'i, ~b ~;;;" < "",' , vt ~) rJ)~ ~ ~i ?1~ ~ . c \ 't !~,:..~ { :t,h t\\.'\- ~', .. ~~ PROPOSEO S\1E pv..N ENOEl'-VQR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised lor November 10. 2009 C~Y counCl' page '\ ( I' _z_ plt~'!'~- ' ~"!>-; r--; i , i 'I.. . ., .. 'y.' ,;f ';: I'. -...... . .,' ." '-;0' ~ :~~.# 8 .::t. Q) Q) ~ U "'C c: res - - o I @ ~ Q) ...- c: Q) aU < ~ > ~ Q) 1l ..: .ot)O~\,l lltrescc! .5_ -c: tI c _ c C 0._ .!!! " ~ > ~;; ~~$ 8 ~~=-_~>/J1 \~,/ ~~~~ ~5~ " ' iI' .- ~ J ~ :A ~ =-&-- "," I' " o'O'a"O'lt;] I J9~ \" ;;! ;! ;! <( ~ ~o j \1 ~.~ ~ 1\ S gN::> ~ \ ~ ~ ~11 _/(' 1!j~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ lI'IiiiO oll.t.t ' ~t , \ ) \ I \ I I ~, I 'J ) ''',',",' ( il! f"~s I :, i ; . ~"-,, : ~",::"~ ~ \0$ '_ "I ~ /" :' ,~~:'" t',~ .~ ~-- . \,.~" I , .. ~ I \, t l=~' t,"", t~ ! '. 'I I L_ ,,'II ,ll'. 1.; i C" ; il' I ~s ~ '-"4-..-1 Ill! ~-..,I I 'I 'i ,', 'I ! i . j !, ,r I i U< < - i ---i --1"i\" < rJ1 ~ ~""""-""",.,.".".",.,,,,' ~ I I i ,IiI ;tJ~ 1,111 :l) fIll 0 ~ lil& ~ Cl' 0 J 1'1 U.l j~11 ~ c Ifill : H 'I II ,~ - : ~ " o i ~ II r-- ~."..~-='=-= --- J '.., ,. L_-,...~. ! Iii ""I' dl,~J I' · I~-<::t" n!'.' "',,- nl. ,_~'. ~'''' '~~~ ~........,...- , '*'ir-l-.""Irlj :.:~ II .! r REZONING EXHIBIT ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 11 ~,.-/ g l::i " ~ ~ 'f I!; {Oi~ (50' f/fIIJ .....E.'~,; 9JG#I ~;- :.F. p" --.- \ ') ._---~-- , ---- ----- __- .-.c:t-'oj ----- ;'1 ;:. ~ ~ 8 ~ ,z ,. .. .. ;Q~u~ !SlOe, _~~IO~ l;o8J;:J, ...l~'f:?~ ~i~~ i fi -~~--~~~------~- ~bi ~ -~ ,,~ · r!<1 ~6~~1 ~~iri: ~l:.i:i3':': ,..:~ ~ .. !. .1..'.1 "" )''' If.'~ ~, fg.. ---~.'I f. - /1 1 , !.II!!' I j.1 - ~LV ~r'l! ~ , '. \. ;" . '.'", ; ,'; t/' , -:!.>! _ I .~,!,';;:v".77f:. -- - Wi.os},J,1fAI Jh'I}:!.:=~-.. . " ~~ g~ ,..~ ------1_- !i: i'~ ! . : I "I ""Of t:-% ii '~,#:,": 1:; .J? J ;:>1 ~~; ~a ! lrlr- \ , : \ I L__J - ~..::-. =~ ~; ~~ '" r;:- I il:"t/ ~ i ~' ::,i , ~ ~,; ?; ~. "~ II I ~~ i i ~~ I I ~ I I I -1; / '\ .. <-"'ll ~ k~-!;- M'- _~r\,:- ~ If \ :.. i : 1 it, L - k, f , HOLLAND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, lLC Revised for November 10,2009 City Council Page 12 I II I' ~ - ~-- ::'=1 . C-lI'I"G! !.LE\-".....,.'O'" "':... ,i:.:fu.t. 2 :c^"~;~~,,~X,~'c.;.::;':' """,..., ,"" PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 13 ,[,.,~,:"',,,'I m , ':;;~7~!;;'?:- JtJ ; ,=:;~t_t'i""~ PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 14 , II I; MO:':!' 1[;,ls~OI" iil( Endeavor ~. 7j. ~ 70-75 B Ldn 0.' ~~.5 B:;;;;Jj ~ r.,( y ~ .-$1 ~ ~,~;.( AG-I ~Ct~ ~'i ~......" V EnterIJrises.. LLC ~-I P-l ~ : ,~. ' ~<d"-", ~" t ~ ITI ~ .' "" 1lI~._ P-I )~ .. ~.:...\..~ ~' m ~ ~ "~f ~ .~ tT~ ~ n ri ';J ... ,\. \~: .-J.r' J;Hft -I ~ ..,~_ ~j~~~.' . ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ "v "-rrr1 ~ ~'"' ~ v }I ~--v~ -'l[ y~. ~a -1 f"'Il.... ~ i.:;;i~~ ~/<~~ 110 ~~ ~ ~:: ~ ,,} .",'~ "~~~"'~~,. AV~ ~ ". kJ J ".-77: ~ LY'Jr~ ~~~ 7: ').'1 '\ :l.....:~ -=t'. /\\\... i~". v /A /' ~ ~ ~ ~~-X/dM;jIIy/1.t"'\:, ':/ ~ ./'o,lilOl~ r 7} B~~ & ;~ ~~, r;~, ~..~ c~ ~/;9 ~ I-- ,'( -{\S)~~ loA..P7)("'" JC.."" ~~ " rr / -/11 /' // COllditional lOlling Change from AG-l and AG-2 to Conditiona 81-A P'I AG.I 1 06/27106 Conditional RezoninQ from AG-1 to R-10 Denied 2 12/10/91 Conditional RezoninQ from R-5D wi PD-H2 to P-1 Granted 3 09/08/98 Conditional Rezoning from AG-1& AG-2 to R-10 Granted 4 03/09/99 Subdivision Variance Granted 5 04/10/01 Conditional Rezoning from AG-1& AG-2 to R-10 Granted 6 05/13/03 Conditional RezoninQ from AG-1& AG-2 to R-5D Granted 7 04/10/01 Conditional RezoninQ from AG-1& AG-2 to R-10 Granted 8 10/22/84 Conditional Rezoning from R-8 to R-5D wi PD-H2 Granted 9 11/02/87 Conditional RezoninQ from AG-1to R-6 Granted ZONING HISTORY ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 15 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) Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C.: Vishnu Sappati, Member; Radhakrishna Renukunta, Membl=r 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary' or affiliated business entitj rel€ltionship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) o ChHck here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or othl~r unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Compll?te 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) New Endeavors, L.e.: Vishnu Sappati, Member; Or. Suhas Deshmukh, Member; Radhal(rishna Renukunta, Member 2. List all businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entitj relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) o ChE!ck here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. ~e next page for footnotes Conditional Rezoning Application Page 11 of 1;! Revised 9!1{,'004 z o I I ~ U I I .....:1 J:t-c ~ ~ Z I I ~ .N ga ~ o I I f-4 I I Q Z o u ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10, 2009 City Council Page 16 I' z o I I ~ U I I ~ ~ ~ ~ Z I I Z o N E:a ~ o I I f-I I I ~ Z o u DISCLOSURE STATE ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List aI/ 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) Engineering Services, Inc. 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 control/ing ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code S 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing accordin~ to the instructions in this package. Endeav~, ,11" terpees, L.L.C. By: _,-'1d..Ct':-~ Applicant's, SlQriature New Endea \ terPrises,j..C. By: /,', S"~ Property Owne~~ature (if different than applicant) Vishnu Sappati, Member Print Name Vishnu Sappati, Member Print Name Condibonal Rezoning Application Page 12 of 12 ReVised 911/2004 ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, LLC Revised for November 10,2009 City Council Page 17 Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c. Change of Zoning District Classification East side of Holland Road District 7 Princess Anne May 13,2009 REGULAR Donald Horsley: The next item on our agenda is item 22, Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. An application for a change of Zoning District Classification for AG-l & AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-1 A Business District and P-l Preservation District on the east side of Holland Road, approximately 120 feet south ofChestnu Oak Way, District 7, Princess Anne. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Horsley. Madame Chair and members of the Commission, for the record, I'm Eddi(: Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing Endeavor Enterprises. A number of the investors in the organization are here today along with RK, who is the managing member. Before I get started, I want to take a second to thank Karen Prochilo for tireless efforts on this application, and helping us move forward with a number of modifications. I think she has done a wonderful job. I want to also thank the members of the surrounding community with whom we've had three very lengthy meetings which were well lttended. The fact that everyone that attended were gentlemen and gentlewomen, and everybody was very cordial, I do think the level of discourse as been extremely good. Now whether we agree or disagree, and there is obviously some disagreement, I do think the processes has been what we all would hope it would be in tenns in way that people have composed themselves. We have provided a handout, which you all should have that is pretty descriptive and it includes the final version of the plan, which this morning was not on the PowerPoint. The final version is not that much different from the one that you were all looking at during the infonnal this morning. But I wanted to point out Mr. David Beardsley with Fnesse Handgun, our Traffic Engineer is here and Bob Miller was here earlier. He is going to be back jown but he is the project engineer on this application. The proposed project involves just under 20-acres ofland on the east side of Holland Road. We are proposing to rezone this 19.94 acres as 14.76 acres of B-IA Limited Community Business District with an additional 5.18 acres to be rezoned to P-l Preservation District. That 5.18 acre preservation area district portion of the property will be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach as parklands with the development of Phase I of this project. If we could look at the aerial for second, I just wanted to point out because it will probably be part of the conversation. Th(: community to the north Chestnut Oak Way is the Greenwood Community and the community to the south, Sugar Maple Drive is the entrance road, and that is Holland Oaks as that community. To our east is Barberry, which is the entrance to the existing community on the west side of Holland Road that may also be part of the conversation. The subject property is located in the 70 plus Db high noise zone around Oceana Naval Air Base. These three parcels were assembled by my clients prior to the wonderful 3RAC land use train wreck that occurred a few years ago. These parcels were assembled with the intent to develop them in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was in place at the time. In Spring 2006, an application was submitted and it was unfortunately when BRAC was hittin,~ us. We've been dealing with that application at the end of Chestnut Oak Way to rezone a portion of the property from agricultural to residential. The Planning Director and the Planning staff recommended approval of that indicating that the existing agricultural zoning was not appropriate in this area, and that this was the best use of the property. You innately approved that request. There was opposition to it. Primarily from the Navy but from also from a number of residents in the area who opposed residential use of the property at that time. City Council, 6 to 5 denied that application and as it is written, we appealed to court and the court said that the Council was within its right to deny the residential use of the property. Now our Comprehensive Plan clearly, which was adopted subsequently to amendments from BRAC, clearly say that you cannot develop the property residential as it was acquired for that purpose at 3'li units per acre density. That was what the Comprehensive Plan said at the time but I Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 2 that is no longer an available option. Under BRAC and our AICUZ ordinance adopted as a result of BRAC, the uses that are permitted on this property that are compatible, they are industrial or commercial uses, and this proposal is for a mixed use limited, community oriented, commercial development, which is acceptable and the Navy has no objection under their guidelines. The property development plan, if we can look at that up here. This is the correct plan right here. The entrance to the property on about 600 feet of frontage we have on Holland Road is located here, and it has been located across from Barberry as was recommended by Traffic Engineering and by staff. And as was explained in the informal it is located in the area through the middle of the property near the ditch/creek, Village Center and Holland Creek. We're characterizing this as Holland Creek. The entrance and there are a total of 4 buildings proposed on site. Building 2 is at the southwest portion of the property. It is a mixed use retail office and personal service building. We have proffered the elevations of all the buildings, a one story building. Within that building, we have proffered there will be no more than 11,000 square feet of retail, 5,000 square feet of restaurant space, and 9,000 square feet of office and personal service uses. That was in a large measure to concerns that were expressed by staff with the amount ofretail space. We wanted 21,000 square feet of retail space and we agreed with that. That is in the proffered agreement with regard to Building 2. Building 3 at the northeast comer of the property is 9,000 square foot retail one-story building. Again, the elevations proffered. Building 1 is the daycare facility located at the far northeast portion of the property that is for Kiddy Academy. They are a national company. They are respective tenants on that piece of property. The lease is in place. The fourth building is a two-story office building. It is located on the southern side of the property adjacent to a city park in the Holland Oaks neighborhood to the south. The property as proposed also includes an 8 foot multi-purpose trail coming off the Holland Road improvements. It would include a trail system along Holland Road. We're providing an 8 foot multi- purpose trail that runs adjacent to the creek all the way to the back of the property. Along that trail will be benches provided. And obviously all the open space that surrounds it. We've also provided a combination trail/sidewalk system that comes down and will provide access to the city park to the south. Again, the other trail goes to the park plan that we're dedicating to the City at the east side of the property. All total just under 2,000 linear feet of trail that is provided along here, along with the amenities that go with that trail system. Now, again there were concerns expressed by staff and by some of the residents of the neighborhood concerned about traffic issues. So, we have agreed to phase the development with the first phase of development being Building 2 and Building 1. Those would be constructed initially. The second Phase Buildings 3 & 4 would not take place until the current VDOT project to widened Holland Road from Dam Neck Road pass this property is completed. There are four lanes of through traffic on Holland Road. When we started this many, many months ago, the timing of that was more likely sooner rather than later. At this point it is probably later rather than sooner. We could well be 15 to 20 years at the rate things are going but I don't think. I'm an optimist not a pessimist but regardless of that, my client is obviously an optimist. These two buildings will not be constructed until that roadway is completed. However, with this project, and this is also one of the things we've also proffered, this client has proffered to make improvements to Holland Road. That in my estimation, and more important in Bob Millers' estimation, he has been doing this engineering work a long time, sets the bar awfully high because we don't have other people proposing to do what they're proposing to do. They're proposing with Phase I, they will create, in essence an additional lane of Holland Road from Sugar Maple up to Chestnut Oak Way. And a portion will be, in fact two lanes will be created so that at the end of the day, you got an exhibit on that, it was proffered. There will be one through lane going east direction off Holland Road in addition to left turn onto Barberry. A left turn lane onto Chestnut Oak Way and a left turn lane coming into this facility from Holland Road, and a right turn lane on Holland Road. A right turn into Chestnut Oak Way so there will be one unabated lane of traffic going in each direction plus all the required turn lanes. The expense involved in that is significant. And the additional capacity created by that in this particular area is significant. And that is, again one of the things that has been proffered. The plan itself, as you can readily see, there is a significant amount of open space on this property that would not exist ifit was developed residentially. With Phase 1, less than five acres of this 20 acre total piece, (19.8 acres), will be developed. Close to ten acres of open space on this site will Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 3 remain 5.18 acre:; that will remain open space that we dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach. With Phase II, close to 15 acres out of the 19.8 acres will be open space with Phase I. With Phase II, that amount is reduced slightly. Over 13 acres of open space will exist then out of the total of 19.8 acres, which is still unprecedented in the City of Virginia Beach for commercial development. We've also proffered to provide a second traffic impact study prior to Phase II. That is when Holland Road has been completed. At which time, depending upon what it discloses and what Traffic Engineering wants, we might be looking at moving the entrance. We might leave it where it is. That will be determined at some future date, and hopefully we will all still be around at that point in time. The restrictions on use that is included in the proffers include no convenience store on site. No alcohol sales for off premises consumption from any business on site. No alcohol sales at restaurants. We have restaurants included in here with some nice outdoor seating areas away from the homes. No alcohol service at their restaurants past 11 :00 pm at night. We proffered the hours of operation for the Kiddy Academy. We have also provided buffers, extensive buffer planting along the southern portion of the property. There are a total of seven homes that back up to the property in the area, both of the building and the parking area. There is a 32 foot landscap{: area where there is existing vegetation will be retained. This property all drains to the center, which is a good thing and it should provide us with the opportunity to retain a lot of the vegetation in all of the property. But we have agreed to put an 8 foot privacy fence, a solid fence, vinyl along here on our property and have Evergreen plants along the entire outer boundary of that fence and two other rows interior of that fence, in this area, and in the area along the north. We will do a single row of evergreens in the:;e areas where there is nothing. Originally there was going to be a building there but there won't be one there, and along here, as there is no current desire for fencing. I don't think there will ever be. With Phase II, we will extend that in this area as well, although again, we're dealing with park land and not a home. So, those buffer requirements are shown on here as well. And, the buffers will all be maintained by the owner of the property. Because this is a B-1 A and not B-2, this is a less intense commercial zoning. No gas. No car related uses. Like we said, we proffered away any convenience stores. Only 11,000 square feet of retail with Phase I, and again, I can't envision a better scenario for the use of this property. I would hate to see it be something industrial like we've been dealing with earlier on the agenda today, which is the other only really compatible use for this piece of property. With that, I think I'm going to be on my time. I appreciate the Commission letting me do so. It is fairly complicated application, and if you have any questions about any of the information that we provided, I'll be happy to answer any quesLons that you may have. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions for Eddie at this time? Go ahead Jay. Jay Bernas: How do you respond to staffs concern that they mention at the informal that this proposal is too intense. I'm not sure if that was from a traffic standpoint or if that was from a lot coverage standpoint but their comment was that is too intense? Eddie Bourdon: The conversations that I have had, Mr. Bernas, and I hesitate to put words in other people's mouth. [t had nothing whatsoever to with the lot coverage or the amount of development that was proposed. It was my understanding that it was, and we heard this and we made some of the concessions throll ghout the process that it was the amount of retail that was being proposed. And, with it down to 11,000 square feet of retail in Phase I, and with the amount of costly improvements that have to be made, it incluc.ed the development site, the construction, the light fixtures, which we have state of the art light fixtures tJ keep there from being any potential spill over. I failed to mention that. Economically, it just becomes. It just isn't going to be viable. We have to have some amount of retail. 11,000 square feet out of 25,000 is not a lot in our view. Now, the second building and we don't even know when that will even be built. And, it frankly came up toward the last few weeks, and we thought we had addressed those issues more than adequately. But there still seemed to be some concern expressed to me they would like to see the amcmnt of retail space reduce to a greater extent to what is shown on here. The other problem that we have obviously, and we got real estate people here trying to get a good tenant mix and I' Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 4 trying to make this a viable and profitable, or at least break even, proposition given otherwise it will continue to be a losing proposition in tel111S of economics. We didn't feel like, that was too intense with the phasing and with the improvements that we're doing to Holland Road. We didn't feel like that was the case at all. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Henry. Henry Livas: To follow up on that, I have that same concern that Jay mentioned. I need probably more reinforcement from the City as what they call "too intense". I think in tel111S in number of people. You think the Navy was concerned about the number of people in an industrial area? I know they were concerned about residential. Eddie Bourdon: I know the city's comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the Department of the Navy. The Navy has no objection to this. The Navy is not in any way involved in tel111S of having this objection to this. And given the amount of open space, I can't conceive how that would but it is not a Navy issue. You will have to ask the staff. I don't know what that number is. We've been asked on two different occasions. We have reduced the amount of retail and we've agreed to phase. And we felt that those two things would address those concerns. In doing that, we analyze that economics of it and how we can keep our head above water waiting for Holland Road to be built. And gosh knows how long that is going to be. And so it really isn't any opportunity with regard to Phase I to be able to do anything significant in tel111S of reducing the amount of retail space of below what we've already proffered it to be, which will be no more than 11,000 square feet of retail space in Phase 1. There is 5,000 square feet of restaurant space in addition to that. You will have to ask staff Mr. Livas. Henry Livas: I would like a follow up from staff as how you came up with the too intense comment. Karen Prochilo: First, Mr. Bourdon is correct in that it doesn't deal with the Navy, as far as intensity. The Navy supports a non-residential use as we have discussed. They had come back with a much larger project originally. There was a lot of concern based on the traffic issues. That has a lot to do with the intensity. It is because retail does provide a lot more traffic generation then office or even the daycare. Size was an issue as far as the intensity. Not necessarily dealing with the number of buildings. We have to look at what the intensity of each use is. We don't have issues with the uses. We think a mix of some retail, some office, and the daycare is acceptable but we do have an issue with how much. Stephen White: let me expand on that some. I think when you talk about intensity from our perspective, the discussion is. Can you get back to the zoning map? From our perspective the discussion has more to do with the intensity of the use in tel111S of what's around it. In tel111S of a single-family residential development that surrounds this site except for those portions to the east that are non-developable for environmental reasons. And, what we're trying to say is that we understand the applicant bought this property with the expectation of developing it. The applicant was caught with the BRAC, as Mr. Bourdon has stridently pointed out, and it is true that this site is and cannot be used for residential uses. The question then arises what non-residential uses are appropriate? What we have to weigh as planners is what the expectation is of those single-family homeowners who purchased lots here thinking this was going to be probably single-family as well. So, we're trying to find a middle ground of intensity that is appropriate in what really is a single-family area. And, non-residential uses, the daycare I don't think anybody could object to a daycare on this site. I don't think anybody could object to some office on this site. There are other sites to the north on the west side of Holland Road that, and one in particular you rezoned recently for an office type of use. And, a limited amount of retail. Now, I can't tell you what that number is but I'm not sure that its 11,000 square feet. That may be too intense. And, staff thinks that it is. But some neighborhood serving retail on this property would probably be totally appropriate. But Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 5 you got to remerr,ber that it is in a single family residential area. It is not a situation where it is on a comer of two arterials or a strip on an arterial. It's a site in the center of a single-family residential area. Janice Anderson: Okay. We have Dave and then Ron. David Redmond: So, it is not really the intensity then, but it's the nature of the use that bothers them. I'm following up on what Jay and Henry have to say that is not intensity mind. Stephen White: Intensity? David Redmond: Hold on. Let me finish. Stephen White: Okay. Sony. David Redmond; When I look at that map I see an awful lot more of open space on that plan than I see in either neighborhcod to the north or to the south. They are fairly dense neighborhoods. Stephen White: Well. David Redmond: Can I? Stephen White: I thought you were done. David Redmond: I'm not. I'll let you know when I am. Stephen White: Okay. David Redmond: If you look at that map, that piece of property is surrounded by development. It is zoned for a commercial use, agriculture Mr. Horsley, and he is not doing what he does for free. So, obviously it is a commercial property. It may seem like that some times. But, be as it may, you know we can come up with these sorts of arbitrary numbers. It is not 11,000 square feet but gosh I can't tell you what it is. And \\-e sort of casually throw out things that, well we'll change this and do that, as though there are not, and there are, I'm sure, fairly complex financial models behind these things where you essentially make' t not work at some point without really considering what that is. It looks to me there are an awful lot of amenities proffered in this including the transportation, including the open space, including the five acres they want to give to the City. I don't find that in anyway intense. Anyway, we pick up five acres somehow that somehow it is a particularly intense development. Finally, in response to what you have to say, the neighbors expectation perhaps. I'm getting a little ahead of myself, I know the neighbors expectation that these were going to be single-family homes. A lot of us had expectations that got up ended by BRAC. And all of us have bared the burden in some respects. I had expectations myself that certain things would be different and they are not. So, I'm not sure necessarily that particular applicant ought to bear all the burden of that. I mean it is a shared one throughout our community. We've all done it So, anyway there is my comment so there. Stephen White: I have no reply to his comment. Eddie Bourdon: Madame Chair, if I could? Janice Anderson: Sure. Eddie Bourdon: My client has born and 1 can speak personally because I know this. My client has born a II Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 6 brreater burden of what has happened with the BRAC process than anybody that I know. And they are not some of the big developers that we know that I've had the privilege of representing whose pockets are deep and who frankly, my experience wouldn't have been willing to do as much as these folks have been willing to do. I mean that in all sincerity. And, I appreciate the complexity of this issue. I appreciate having spent, and I can't remember but it has been probably 5 or 6 hours with the community in the three meetings talking about it. So, I do recognize and we all recognize that it is a complex situation but it is a situation that we have got to overcome, and with the neighborhood being able to access this property, without having to drive elsewhere, there are some similarities that are reflected in that traffic number as far as capture and things of that nature. To suggest that on 20 acres ofland with 600 feet of frontage on Holland Road that 11,000 square feet of retail is too much, with the improvements and the cost of those improvements. We all know the market for office space is very limited. And, it won't pay for itself. There is no way we can get these improvements by saying we'll condemn it to office space. We are providing office space in the first building, 9,000 square feet will be office and personal service uses. That is mixed use and the daycare. I appreciate Dr. White's expression that it is a great use for that piece of property. We concur wholeheartedly. It is a great use for that piece of property. But this is not a high intensity use of 20 acres by any stretch, and to have retail adjacent homes, we have and I got a long list. I've gone around and made a partial list of number of commercial developments with homes, 10, 12 or 15 homes backing up to it without the level of buffer we have here. We've got Windsor Oaks up on Holland Road, where we did the rezoning on Mast Farm between Chimney Hill and Windsor Oaks neighborhood. We put a huge shopping center behind houses on both sides of that property. But when you put the road through it, it actually got to go through another road. This doesn't get through another road because of its environmental issues behind it. It is very similar to that. And, again, I've got a list if anybody wants it. I may use it on rebuttal of all of these commercial areas in the city with much, much larger commercial, much, much larger retail, and more intrusive directly adjacent to homes. Janice Anderson: Eddie, I think Ron had a question. Didn't you have a question for Eddie? Ronald Ripley: Mine is two questions. And one is the square footage. I know I must have had it but I'm not sure what they are. Do you mind just going over Building 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever? Eddie Bourdon: Building 2, which is I think is the primary building of concerns of Phase I on the southwest comer of the property. It is a total of 25,000 square feet in that building. Okay. Within that 25,000 square feet, we have proffered it would be no more than 11,000 square feet retail. No more than 5,000 square feet of restaurant and the remaining 9,000 square feet would be office or personal service businesses. Get your hair cut, beauty salon, things of that nature. The Phase II building to the northwest comer that is a 9,000 square foot retail building, a one-story retail building; the office building is a two- story, that I believe is 17,000 square feet and the daycare is a one-story building. I apologize. I don't have that committed to memory as far as the square footage of the daycare building in the back. Ronald Ripley: That's okay. Radhakrishna Renuknunta: 9,300 square feet. Eddie Bourdon: 9,300 square feet. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: My second question is that you look like you're doing some off-site improvements here with the road. Can you do all of that within the public right-of-way? You look like you're going beyond your property. Am I seeing this right? Eddie Bourdon: You are. The answer is yes Mr. Ripley because VDOT has acquired the right-of-way. All of the right-of-way in this area for the ultimate four-lane divided highway. Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 7 Ronald Ripley: You're going to accelerate their plan. Eddie Bourdon: We are going to be in this area accelerating to a degree. We're not doing the full VDOT build out but we are creating, as I indicated, creating an additional, in essence lane of traffic. This is the exhibit. All the areas that you see shaded will be new road section that we will be providing which will provide the oppo:tunity for there to be left hand lane going into Sugar Maple and a left lane coming north on Holland to go into Barberry, and a left turn lane, again south on Holland into Chestnut Oak Way with a right hand turn lane coming into our development, a right hand turn lane going into Chestnut Oak Way and a left hand turning coming into our development. Ronald Ripley: Right there at the end of your property. Eddie Bourdon: This is the northern end of the property. This is the southern end of the property. The improvements go all the way past Chestnut Oak Way all the way up into this area as well, so we can create that left tum lane coming in here. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions of Eddie at this time? Thanks. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you all very much. Donald Horsley: We got three speakers in support. John Wessling. John Wessling: Good afternoon. I am John Wessling with GV A Advantis Commercial Real Estate. I am representing the landlord in negotiating the lease for the Kiddy Academy daycare, and I just wanted to share a little bit of information about the proposed daycare. First of all, Kiddy Academy is a national daycare operatior with 100 centers in 21 states. They have done a market study and believe this site on Holland Road is H viable site for one of their centers. It will be operated by a local franchisee by the name of Mary Griffin. Mary is a retired Naval Intelligence Officer who now works as a civilian psychologist with the Navy. The anticipated hours of the center is 6:30 am to 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday. It will not be opened on weekends. Anticipated capacity is approximately 150. It will create 15 to 18 jobs. They expect drop offs to be spread out in the morning between approximately 6:30 am and 8:30 am for the IT,ost part and most pick-ups to between 4:00 and 6:30 pm. There will be a small van with 12 seats to pick up kids from schools for an afterschool program. It will pick up children from schools within a 5 to 7 mile radius ofthe site. It is possible at some point in the future ifthe afterschool program has enough demal1d there could be a second van. Initially the Kiddy Academy will be a daycare. After a year-long accreditation process, it may become an accredited pre-school. In good weather, there will be children on the outdoor playground in groups always supervised and within a fenced in area. There will be six foot high fc:nce around that outdoor area. And as you heard a few minutes ago, the daycare building is 9,315 square feet, and the outdoor fenced in area is a little bit more than 4,000 square feet. It will be well mamged. The owner anticipates a system of security cameras and occasionally offering sporadic field trips to places like the aquarium. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions for John? Thank you. John Wessling: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Okay. Our next speaker is Susan Sivertsen. Susan Sivertsen: Good afternoon. I'm Susan Sivertsen and I'm a nine year resident of the Holland Oaks Subdivision. I am very proud of our community, and I'm also in support of this project. The reason is I: Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c. Page 8 that I am a small business owner here in Virginia Beach. There is nothing that excites me more in today's economy is to be able create additional jobs. In addition to that, there is what looks like an ideal situation for the Christopher Fanus Elementary School. I'm a mother of nine year old third grader there who is a honorable student at that school. There is nothing more frustrating in the summer time and an after-hours care knowing the amount of time we have to spend to find after hours care for our children there. Being a working mother and a working father in the household, we need to have that after hours care. Christopher Fanus fills out within the same day of registration at that location. Having an additional facility, in addition to the Kindercare options that are available in our community, it is a very exciting to our neighbors and our community. I've talked to numerous residents there and nothing excites them to have somewhere else that is local, that we can walk to that facility to be able not only to pick up our children but drop off our children in the morning for those who are heading out. We are a thriving community. We look forward to this. It looks like from this project is a green project that will not only look at low lighting for us, low impact to our community and not only decrease the amount of impact to those residents for after hours for noise situations, where we have enough teenagers back there causing situations, but to be able to clean up that environment and allow for the job growth. The support for additional property values having that daycare facility in that area, and an addition to Holland Road. As we all know that project is coming. We're excited for that project. But the point is that we have enough helicopters coming in to airlift people from accidents over there. I witnessed three or four myself happening. People drive quickly and having additional lanes will only help us stay safer on that road. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any more questions for Ms. Sivertsen? Thank you. Susan Sivertsen: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Okay. Eric Sivertsen. Eric Sivertsen: Good afternoon. Just by a way of a quick introduction. Ed Weeden: State your name for the record. Eric Sivertsen: Certainly. Eric Sivertsen. Ed Weeden: Thank you. Eric Sivertsen: You're welcome. We live in an adjoining property to the proposed development. Donald Horsley: Can you show us on the map? Eric Sivertsen: Certainly. Donald Horsley: There is a pointer right there. Eric Sivertsen: Just by way of introduction, I'm employed by a local company here in Virginia Beach for the past nine years. I am a Board member on the Project Management Institute of Hampton Roads, which is very active in the Hampton Roads community. I want to say that I am in favor of this development. What I am not in favor of is the fear of what will go in there. We have lived there for nine years looking at a beautiful landscape. My expectation has always been that was going to remain that. Now, that may be a false expectation knowing that the property could be owned by someone but Endeavor Enterprises has taken time to come in and talk to the community, explain what they are going to do, and I think they have gone out of their way to try to make the impact as minimal as possible. Again, I believe that their proposal is really to integrate and become a really good addition to our community. Thank you. Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 9 Janice Anderson Are there any questions of Mr. Siverteson? Thank you sir. Donald Horsley: Speaking in opposition is Karen Maxwell. Janice Anderson: Welcome. Karen Maxwell: Good afternoon Madame Commissioner and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Karen Maxwell. My address is 2966 Sugar Maple Drive. I actually own the property that is adjacent to the pak of this proposed project. Donald Horsley: Do you want to show us? Karen Maxwell: I'm right there (pointing to PowerPoint) Janice Anderson: Okay. Karen Maxwell: Okay. Although I have many concerns about this project, my two major concerns are the fact that Endeavor is proposing to have an access road that actually leads from their retail establishment to the city park and also the fact that they will be selling alcohol until 11 :00 pm. There has been an ongoing effort to try and eliminate drugs and gang activity in the park. Because of the fact that it is limited, only one way in, one way out, my neighbors and I have been able to really monitor the situation, and engaged help of the police force to prevent that from flourishing. However, with this new proposed plan, I can see that this would really be a problem. The fact that the parking lot that is actually right behind the proposed development, and then by having actually the park there, really provides access to the neighborhood. That is, to me really a recipe for disaster because all of a sudden you're opening up the neighborhood to various types of different elements. I don't understand why a residential park should add an amenity to a commercial enterprise. I think, as we've all seen this plan has changed numerous times, and now all of a sudden we're adding the fact that we're going to have this pathway. I think that Endeavor's thought was we would have the opportunity to have people from the neighborhood go over and enjoy the sen'ices of this community. However, on the other hand what happens is that you have all of these people thlt are visiting these retail establishments, now coming into the community park. And, I really just don't see that is fair. I also think, again present a hazard to the neighborhood. I think that one of the concerns that actually Dr. White and Mr. Redmond was addressing was the intensity of the project. I think that, I gue~.s we started talking about the types of use. That is a major concern of mine. The fact that we're talking about all of this retail space and what that brings to the fact that this is a totally a residential community. I do understand that fact that Endeavor does have the right to develop their property. This wa:; an investment they made and because of the decisions of the BRAC Commission, they're limited in the types of uses. That is understood. However, I would ask that everyone take into consideration that this is neighborhood community, and some of the types of businesses that they are talking about brin,~ing into can greatly impact the community. Janice Anderson: Thank you Ms. Maxwell. Are there any questions? Go ahead AI. Al Henley: yes. ~~o, really your concern is because of the park may be encouraging some illegal or not so good activities from the proposed development? Karen Maxwell: Yes I am. The fact that and as I said you had various people congregating, etc., now all of sudden you also have the opportunity with the establishments that are serving alcohol to be opened until 11 :00 pm. Although they are not allowing carry out alcohol, people can visit those establishments, and as we all know once people engage in alcohol consumption, attitudes changed. Then all of a sudden they can easily walk over, hang out in the park. I just don't think that it provides for a good use of the facilities. I' Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 10 Al Henley: Would you be happy if the development cut that access off completely and had an eight foot solid privacy fence along that entire property line? Karen Maxwell: Yes I would. That is what I would really be hoping for. One of the concerns though is, this plan has changed numerous times keeping it up with it has been quite difficult. At one point in time, the fence seemed to have extended the entire line going up until the 5 acre portion that is to be given back to the City. Now, because there is a phased approached, it looks like they're saying they're only going to put the fence up to the end of the second building. That is going to leave still an open access way to the park. So, that is a concern. Al Henley: Okay. I think it was the intent of the development and that would be a positive element to the neighborhood to open that access so they could visit those facilities but however, like your concerns are, the idea was negative rather than a positive. Karen Maxwell: Yes. That is correct. AL Henley: Thank you. Karen Maxwell: You're welcome. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Thank you. Donald Horsley: Kenneth Slobodkin. Kenneth Slobodkin: Good afternoon. Janice Anderson: Good afternoon. Thank you. Kenneth Slobodkin: Madame Chair and members of the Commission, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Kenneth Slobodkin. It weeds out the telemarketers. I've lived on Barberry Lane since 1999, and when we moved to Barberry Lane with my family, neighbors told us that the only real problem is fast cars pulling through the subdivision and sometimes long waits to make left turn onto Holland Road from Barberry Lane. Well, that was accurate because we to have grown to love our neighborhood but we remain vigilant for fast moving cars cutting through. It is a constant danger to our children, as it is in a lot of neighborhoods. We accept the fact that crossing or walking along Holland Road even to a park that is less than a quarter mile from our house is really a death sentence. It is not available to us. When we heard VDOT's plan to close off Barberry Lane as part of the widening project, we became hopeful. That project got pushed to 2008 then 2012. It looks like is 2020 now. The question is why did VDOT make closing off Barberry Lane part of their plan? Well, I don't have the answer to that question but the more important question is, were those reasons that VDOT had whatever they are taken into consideration when this plan was created? They have lined up. Can we get a shot with Barberry Lane and Holland? I will show you where I live. I'm right about here on Barberry Lane (pointing to PowerPoint). That is Barberry? Yeah. Okay. It looks like we got left turn lanes going into the Village Centre. We got a left turn lane going into Barberry Lane. It looks like the left turn lane going into Barberry is only about 75 feet long. If this is 200 feet, this is about 75 feet. Now, when that left turn holding lane fills up, traffic is going to back up right about here. You're going to have the same problem you have now with cars getting rear ended because that is insufficient. I also believe that the traffic impact analysis paid for by Mr. Renulrnunta says that is going to create additional traffic capacity and including benefits and reduce the latest for through traffic on Holland Road. I believe that is true. I also believe that this is going to meet huge amounts of traffic through the residential subdivision at Barberry because of that left turn lane from Holland Road onto Barberry. If an average of one car uses Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 11 that lane every fi'ie minutes that is going to be an extra 100,000 going through that subdivision. One car every 2 minutes is a quarter million cars a year. It is my hope that you have the power to pass this zoning request with a line item rejection of this traffic plan because I think Mr. Renukunta and his people have worked hard on this. It promises to be a great benefit to the community. Mr. Renukunta had nothing to do with this road plan. He was told by the City that ifhe wants this project to move forward he has to include these features so he did, including the left turn lane into Barberry. Instead, how about we come up with an alternative plan that doesn't send all these new cars through a residential subdivision such as shutting off the street now, which is VDOT's plan and recommendation or putting in a barrier that restricts left turns onto Holland Road so you can turn right onto Barberry and you can turn right out of Barberry. I see n::> advantage a residential subdivision to this commercial endeavor and I urge this Commission to do the right thing and protect my children and the hundreds of children in Landstown Meadows that deserve to live where their safety isn't put at risk in the name of a left turn lane that ignores VDOT's recommendations and doesn't have a thing to do with this development. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions? Thank you sir. Kenneth Slobodkin: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Stuart Koegle. Did I mess that up bad? Stuart Koegle: Yt:s. Go through life with it like that. Donald Horsley: That's alright. Stuart Koegle: Madame Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Stuart Koegle. I'm the President of the Greenwood Community Association that borders the north side of the proposal. I appreciate the ch2nce to speak about the development of Endeavor Enterprises. I spoke with Barbara Henley to find out how this works. I really didn't understand a lot of the things and what's going on here. We understand th:lt Endeavor Enterprises has the right to develop this, and we understand that. I would like to thank Karen Prochilo for her help. When I worked with her in understanding what 0-1 is, which is office for rezonin:~ this. I think it is a viable option for this. We sent Endeavor Enterprises, in January, a five-page letter. Stating what the neighborhoods that I had talked too and what the people in Greenwood had talked about to make this a professional office park, doctors, dentists and things of this nature. I would also like to thank Ric Lowman and the traffic information. In what he is proposing is going to be an increase here. There will be over 3,000 vehicles a day moving in and out of this area onto to Holland Road. That is per day. Holland Road right now is over capacity. It is rated about 16, 000 vehicles a day. It is over 17,000 right now. Those are numbers that are coming right from Traffic. While the applicant Endeavor Enterprises has met with the adjacent neighborhoods three times, my perception of these three meetings is that Endeavor Enterprises was there to tell us what they were going to do not to change the proposal or integrate any ideas for what the neighborhoods wanted. In January, we sent them the five page letter trying to move into an office realm. There was actually no discussion about this at all. I would liken it to Holland Office Park, which is Holland Road just north of Mount Trashmore. And at 7/eleven the buildings are single story in the woods. It would be an addition. Building another daycare, I don't believe is slpported. The demographics of Virginia Beach are showing stagnant and they just closed one of the I~lementary schools. In a 4.5 mile radius there are over 50 daycare centers that are not full. The population of Virginia Beach is also aging. That is why I feel that the area could be used as an office park for dental, medical, something that would support Sentara Hospital that is getting ready to be built over there. VDOT? That has been discussed. 2020 is coming down the road. We also don't know what the impact i~ going to be on the water. There is only a 16 inch city main there. When they hookup to the water how is that going to impact us at Holland Road? Sewage is the same way. Both of those will not be increased until they widen Holland Road or they upgrade Holland Road. We ran a petition. There I' Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c. Page 12 is over 400 people signed the petition that are against this proposal, this development as it is set up right now. Thank you for your time. Janice Anderson: Thank you Mr. Koegle. Are there any questions? Thank you sir. Donald Horsley: Michael Carey. I got that one right. Michael Carey: Madame Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Good afternoon. My name is Michael Carey. I'm a resident of Chestnut Oak Way, which borders the parcel ofland in question. I'm also on the Board of Directors for the Greenwood Homes Association. I am a retired police officer now in the private sector. When I bought my home on Chestnut Oak Way, I bought it for two reasons. First it was a safe environment for my family to stay here for the remainder of our lives and for the school system. I did not buy it with the idea that a road would be put through behind my home and commercial buildings and restaurants and alcohol being sold. I agree with Mr. Koegle as far as office space. I also agree with Endeavor Enterprises in the sense that they do have the right to develop their property but I feel as though it is their responsibility as well as the City's responsibility to make sure that it developed wisely and compatible to the adjoining neighborhoods. I don't think, and I would hope, you would agree that the infrastructure along Holland Road would not support the added traffic that this would put on Holland Road. Incidentally, it has not been mentioned yet but at the comer of Chestnut Oak Way and Holland Road there is a bus stop there. It is virtually impossible to pull out of our street to make a left turn onto Holland to go south down to Princess Anne Road. It virtually cannot be done. With this added traffic who knows what that will do? I don't agree with some of the comments that were made earlier about the BRAC Commission and so forth. We should just expect that this could happen. It was a reasonable expectation on our part to have neighbors behind us. We knew that property would be developed at some point. I think it would be a very reasonable expectation to believe that it would be residential neighbors. We got caught in this "catch 22" because investors came along, bought this property. They weren't the original land owner. They want to flip the property and make a profit on it and that is their right to do that. It is also my right to make money in the stock market. It is an investment and that is a gamble. But likewise, I don't think it was reasonable to have a shopping center sandwiched in between two residential communities. There is minimal frontage along Holland Road and if you look at this, it is not a parking lot. It is a street that is going through the property with buildings and shopping centers on each side. This would literally not be compatible to either residential neighborhood. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions of Mr. Carey? Thank you sir. Michael Carey: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Frances Mongin. Frances Mongin: My name is Frances Mongin and I'm not a fancy person. I just live in Holland Oaks Development for 13 year. And when I bought the home in Holland Oaks, I was told yes, it would be residential. I'm also a teacher so I'm also very sentimental. I worry about the children. I agree with the park. We have a lot of police activity right now in our development of Holland Oaks where teenagers are hanging out at the park. The police and the neighborhood is working together to keep all of our children safe. I do oppose the change from residential to commercial. I would have been happy to have residential neighbors behind me. And probably would have made them a pot of sauce and welcomed them to the neighborhood. But I have concerns also as an environmentalist. I'm so fortunate to live where I did because I'm behind the woods. That are woods right now and we have owls back there. Being a New York City girl, I just love those animals and those birds. And, I also have heavy rains. We have flooding so I am very fortunate to have Lake Mongin in the front of my house and behind my house where those wetlands are. So, there is a lot of considerations for the environment. As a teacher traveling Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 13 out of my development to try to get to work in the morning, there are many days that I am sitting there IS minutes waiting 10 make my turn onto Holland Road. I allow that time into my travels so I can get to work on time. Blt I would like for you to consider the neighborhood, and I understand that everyone has a right to make money. Believe it or not, we have our 401Ks that have died. We all made a risk with money and economics but consider all the people in Holland Oaks, Hidden Oaks, and Greenwood next to us when you make your decision. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you ma'am. Donald Horsley: Ashlee Morgan. Ashlee Morgan: Good afternoon Madame Chairwoman and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Ashlee Morgan, and I am a realtor. I'm also a homeowner here on Chestnut Oak Way. I am here today in opposition of this development. Don't get me wrong. I'm for growth and economic development for our city. However, this location is not a good one. As a realtor, I am self employed. My husband is self employed. Jobs in our economy are very important. This particular parcel is not the right place. I have briefly reviewed the Comprehensive Plan by the City of Virginia Beach as I am sure have all of you. I am aware that this is the guideline for the future vision of our City. This parcel falls in a primary residential area. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and quality of stable neighborhoods. This developer is proposing, and if you look at this what looks like a small retail strip center in between two neighborhoods with a two-story office building and five acres o( ust building footprint sandwiched between two residential areas. I know the Comprehensive Plan states to avoid further development of strip centers only to major roadways and two encourage the reuse and redevelopment of existing commercial site, and limit these to intersections, definitely not beD~een two neighborhoods. We have spent a lot of time reviewing the proposed site plans for this parcel sin;e November. I mean, of course, we have several concerns. Traffic is definitely an issue. We were told several different numbers on several different of the meeting. Some of them have said 2,500 cars. ~:ome of them have said 3,000 additional cars based on this development. Either way, even if there is only a 1,000 cars that road is over capacity. There is no way around it. I am also a mother of a third grade, and a fifth grader of Christopher Farm Elementary. Each morning I struggle to safely turn left to get them to school on time. We also have based on the recommendations of staff that they did recommend denial. Stormwater management cannot accommodate development. Holland Road cannot handle any additional cars on the road. The Comprehensive Plan is your guideline and your vision for the city. If you start hending the guidelines and making exception after exception, the guidelines and the vision gets lost. I ask for each of you to deny this request today because this proposal is too intense. It is too intense for five acres in a residential area. That's all. Thank you for your time. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions of Ms. Morgan? Thank you Ashlee Morgan: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Joe Heilman. Joe Heilman: Good afternoon. My name is Joe Heilman. Thanks for hearing me today. My family and I live at 3004 Barberry Lane, which is now the comer of Barberry and Holland after 3002 Barberry has been tom down for road expansion. When we moved there in 2006, we were told that VDOT's plan was to widen Holland Road and to put up a sound barrier there to close off Barberry Lane. We soon realized why because cars love to cut through Barberry Lane and the traffic can be burdensome at times. There are children all around including my two, eight and five year old. Now with Holland Road being expanded, we're scared because VDOT's plan is being taken away and turn lanes are being put in. If that is to happen and Barberry is to go directly into this new development then Barberry becomes even more of a cut-through fc)r people. Barberry is a very thin road. It is a very narrow road. There are a lot of one I' Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c. Page 14 car driveways, cars on either side of the road right now. It is a maze to get through Barberry Lane to get out either way. If there is more traffic put on that road, I simply don't know how I'm going to get out of my front door. So, I'm asking that you will reconsider VDOT's plan to close off Barberry Lane. We have no problem, my family and I with the development or whatever is going to be put across the street from us. We would hope that you would consider the safety of the children and the families on Barberry Lane. Thank you. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions? Donald Horsley: Jerry Chiusano. Jerry Chiusanio: Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Chiusano and I live in Holland Oaks. Very quickly, I will show you my little piece of America. I am right there. That is my house (pointing to PowerPoint). I have lived there since 1999. I was deposited here. I've been here for 30 years. I came here in 1979.1 was a member of Uncle Sam's canoe club, and I decided to stay in this little City of Virginia Beach. Look where we are now? I've worked for the City for 26 years, and I am a middle manager in the Public Safety division. What I do is that everybody that is underneath my command and I learn things, that if it is predictable it is preventable. Some ofthese things that I want to point, and I'm going to try not to be redundant, and I'll get out of your hair are two points. This is just one of those scenarios that quite honestly doesn't make sense. It is not necessarily because it is in my backyard so to speak, it's just the fact of the matter that the owner, sorry to say was put into a precarious position that he has to use the land for something. Like the previous speakers and as you can see with our beautiful neighborhoods on either side, the assumption, and we are all taught that is a terrible word, but in reality our assumption was going to be a residential neighborhood where all of these trees are. So, that's the first point. And, if! could, respectfully tell Mr. Redmond that by virtual of knowing that it is possible that their giving the City "x" amount of property. I think they are using 5 or 2 acres. Whatever the case may be, the reality is and it is great for use as City stakeholders, that property is mush. So, the fact of the matter is that he is going to give us some property but that area that goes towards the creek is kind of unusable anyway. So, I just wanted to put some reality to that respectfully sir if I could. The second issue is the most important issue. This project although we understand that it is the property owner's right to do something with his property, the one key medium that we're all discussing here is that maybe it's, first of all too much. I love the word "intense" but it is too much too early. Holland Road needs help. We were told when I bought my house under contract that this little area right here was going to be a cul-de-sac. This is a construction entrance. When this property was built in 95-96, right around there, this was going to be closed off because Holland Road was going to be widened. Here are two years later because they said it was going to happen around 1999, were ten years later. It's 2009, and now we are told in writing through the City official that at a minimum 2019 or 2020 is when this Holland Road is going to be expanded. The fact of the matter is Holland Road is an issue. It's a safety issue. If! was here tomorrow in unifonn I could gfbring you numbers to show you the amount oftraffic accidents, and if not fatalities, serious injuries because of this overloaded road. Go home that way this afternoon and I hope that you will be satisfied with your vote of a denial today would be for the safety of our citizens. It is too early. We have to finish Holland Road first. Thank you so very much. I appreciate the honor. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Chiusano? Go ahead. David Redmond: I'm sorry. How do you pronounce your name again? Jerry Chiusano: CHU-SANO. David Redmond: I've come to mistrust his pronunciation today. Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 15 Jerry Chiusano: I just found out I have an Italian in my neighborhood. I'm going over for sauce. David Redmond Come back. I have a question for you. You mentioned that you were told that was going to be a construction entrance at Sugar Maple. Jerry Chiusano: It's an opening right now. It was a construction entrance. We were told that Holland Road was going to be finished within a two year period and that was going to be closed off. So, my street Sugar Maple, this entire street was going to be a dead end. Now, my goodness and of course that sounds great. I'm only g~ing to be six houses from the end of a dead end. I'm going to have a cul-de-sac. So, we've got so many promises over the years. Again, I know that promises are only as good as the plan but you could only imagine this is not a wide frontage. Go by there and look. It's your assumption, as a good investor. This is my fourth home here in the City of Virginia Beach. My assumption was I was moving to a residential area, David Redmond: That was precisely my point. The reason why I asked you is because someone else here earlier had said that we were told that these were going to be houses. Who knows who tells you something over the years? Jerry Chiusano: Sure. David Redmond: I've come the hard way to treat rather skeptically what people tell me and not necessarily rely en them until they occur. Jerry Chiusano: t\bsolutely sir. David Redmond: But that was really rather my point earlier. I'm sure at some point there was some expectation and t1e assumption since it is buffered on all sides practically by houses that it would be houses. BRAC upended all of that. Jerry Chiusano: :~ure, absolutely. David Redmond: Completely threw it out the window. Jerry Chiusano: Right. David Redmond: If that was my assumption if I was standing at 30,000 feet and looking down and thinking, this is h~w it is arranged. That may have been very valid. I'm not sure those assumptions. There changeable by virtue of circumstance. And BRAC was a pretty big one around here. Jerry Chiusano: Absolutely. And I agree with you but our Plan B, in my personal opinion that since we have Plan B, and since that new property owner does have the right to have a Plan B. Plan A needs to be less intense, Plan C, needs to say that Plan B needs to come onboard after Holland Road can handle what that plan C will hiVe. It can't handle what we have now. Holland Road is overweight with cars, with traffic. It is what it is. David Redmond: Okay. Thank you. Jerry Chiusano: Thank you sir. II Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c. Page 16 Janice Anderson: Thank you. No other speakers? Eddie? Can you kind of address some of their concerns? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. I appreciate it. I will try to address them. It will take more than three minutes. Again, I want to thank the community representatives from coming down today. Again, I will repeat what I say, but again, everybody composed themselves very professionally. That is from my standpoint something that I greatly appreciate. First of all, I'll start at the beginning with Karen Maxwell's concerns. The connectivity by creating a trail connection to the park was something that staff had asked us to do, and it is in fact was intended in fact to provide a means for people to access our development from the neighborhood without having to go out onto Holland Road. We certainly don't have to have that. We got, as I said, 15 acres of park space on our property. That park is not particularly large. I don't know that someone is going to hang out there versus hangout on the parks that we have. We don't intend to have anybody hanging out. We have security. If that is a big concern, again it wasn't our idea. We had no problem doing it. It will save us money not to have that connectivity. But I guess what our Comprehensive Plan asked for, look for and I think that is a good thing overall. We're not going to fall on our sword on that. We heard a number of times types of use, types of use. Immediately had and I beg to differ to one of the statements that were made. We asked for feedback. We got feedback. Whatever we got we put into the agreement. We don't necessarily agree with everything but we tried to eliminate uses that would create concerns such as convenience stores and people selling alcohol in an uncontrolled environment. Not the same situation with regard to a restaurant. Not a bar but a restaurant. You can't have a bar on this property in B-1 A. You can't have a nightclub or any of that kind of stuff, which we have gone over and explained. It will be like an Appleby's or a place like that. We don't think that is going to create a problem. As far as the two gentlemen spoke on Barberry, again the location of the entrance across from Barberry is something that Traffic Engineering and the City expressed was the correct location. We didn't object to that. By providing these turn lanes in the road, where now there really is a difficult time getting across the street because there is no way to stay in the middle, at least that opportunity all now exist, which should exactly make it somewhat easier. We're not creating a cut-through. If Barberry is a cut-through now, it will be a cut-through later. I don't really see that. There is no left turn lane going into Barberry now. We don't understand and maybe Traffic Engineering can, The idea that there is going to be a bunch of people stacked up northbound on Holland Road turning left onto Barberry for some conceived cut-through. Again, we're doing it because that will help traffic. We're doing it because that we were requested to do. It will save us money if you cut Barberry off and we don't have to make all of those improvements. It is not something that we need for the development of our business. I think it does make sense traffic wise. As far as Mr. Keogle comments, we do have office space in here. We hope there will be some office use tenants, professional office. It would be great but I would suggest to you that the city's huge medical complex at Princess Anne Commons and all of the medical office buildings here at Princess Anne Commons is pretty much saturated that market. Again, we would welcome and hope there would be some but our professionals tell us and I think you all know enough to recognize that the likelihood is that were not to have a significant amount of office space desire demand in this particular area but we certainly are anticipating some, and hope there will be some. That is why we have a mixed use development. But again, our intent all along I think we have demonstrated a huge desire to work with the community to try to make this as, good as it can be. With regard to Mr. Carey's, and I do take some exception to some of the things that were said by Mr. Carey, my client bought this property intending to develop it residentially, as it was recommended at the time. The flipping of the property to make a profit is an absurd proposition. He is just trying to keep his head above water at this point. At one point, although I think he changed his mind at the end, Mr. Carey and some of the other neighbors opposed residential development at the end of Chestnut Oak Way back when we proposed that rezoning. So, again Mike did change his mind at the very last minute on that one. A number of residents in the area did actually come down and oppose that request to rezone it residentially. Now, they found the Lord. They want it be residential. We wish that it was the case. But the idea that he is going to make some kind of profit off of this is an absurd proposition. Fifteen acres out Item #22 Endeavor Entelprises, L.L.C. Page 17 of 20 acres will be open space with Phase I being develop 13 acres out of 20 acres open space upon complete build out and gosh know how long that will be. Now, with Ms. Morgan's concerns, the actual total building foot print of all four buildings on this site is 1.19 acres, the building footprint. She indicated 5 acres. Again, it is the total build out of the road on site and it just serves the site and nothing else as well as the parking lot. That is how you get the 5 acres. Mr. Carey and Ms. Morgan's property backs up to wooded area and that will remain wooded area. There is no road until you go on the south side of the creek, which is very significance distance from the back of their property. We offered to put a solid fence up. They indicated they didn't want a solid fence, so there is nothing to be built behind them with this plan. Earlier there was a plan that had a building behind there. In fact, the daycare was behind their home. But that is not there anymore. The part about this being too much, and again I go back to what I said. The;"e is nothing like this anywhere in the city where you go this much open space associated with a preserved open space. Not just the part that's dedicated to the city, preserved and maintained open space. A part of a development of a office and commercial mixed use development. And with the phasing, and if you develop this property residentially, if we were able to develop it residentially at 3.5 units per acre of developable land you would be looking at something close to 2,000 trips per day, just under 2,000 trips per day if it had been developed residentially. You would have houses up against houses and you would have a small fraction of the amount of open space that you're dealing with this application. This application would represent probably 300 percent. That is probably too low, increase the amount of opl~n space that you would have verses if it was developed residentially. So, my firm belief that once it is there, and people start utilizing the services and the businesses, it will come to be part of the community that we envisioned it to be, that the developer envisioned it to be. Staff envisions it to be. The only issue that staff has isn't that type of development but simply the concern about the amount of retail. With that, I'll be glad to answer any questions that you may have. Our Traffic Engineer is here if anybody has any questions of him. Janice Anderson: Are there any questions for Eddie at this time? Go ahead Jay. Jay Bernas: First I want to say and I want to echo one of the speakers and say that they are right. This doesn't make sen,e, and where we're at because of the BRAC. Obviously, everybody wants residential but it is what it is My question to you is I'm trying to arrive at a compromise or a win-win for both sides. You mentioned that this would be a phase development. One option could be let's say you had the daycare obviously. It looks like you got a tenant for the daycare. You do the daycare in an office building in Phase I and that is all that we approve today. Is that something that is economically feasible and then we will :;ee how it happens? Because you said you're going to do it in phases anyway. The second phase is gJing to come years later. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Bernas what doesn't work with that is that you don't have the demand for the office space. They are paying the rents and there not even going to come close to paying for the infrastructure that is required. You're talking about doing those and not making any improvements to Holland Road whatsoever. Some of those types of issues, you're talking about tradeoffs here. You cannot make the numbers work. You can't conceivably make the numbers work, with what were having to invest. Forget the purchase price of the property but the infrastructure improvements that we're talking about with this development. The trail costs a lot of money to put in as well as all the landscaping. And Ms. Maxwell's concern, if they dJn't want the connection, we always intended to put the fence all the way to the end when we did Pha~:e II, and have a gate through there but if they don't want that extra, we will put the fence up at the beginning. Those are all the costs. But the biggest cost obviously is the infrastructure cost and the improverrents to Holland Road, is the significant one of those costs as well. You can conceivably make those numb;:rs work with doing the office building for really there isn't a demand and the daycare. And the daycare i, clearly one of the driving forces in terms of being able to provide the cash flow to be able to sustain thi:; development until Holland Road is built. And I appreciate your first comment. None of us wishes we were in this position. I' Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c. Page 18 Janice Anderson: Any other questions of Eddie at this time? Thanks Eddie. I'll bring you back. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you very much Madame Chair. Janice Anderson: Ric? Would you mind us putting you in the hot seat here? Ric Lowman: I've got some responses. Janice Anderson: Okay. Because there have been several concerns about it. Ric Lowman: Yes. For the record, I'm Ric Lowman, City of Virginia Beach Traffic Engineering. Karen, can you put up the infrastructure? Before you guys ask any, I guess additional questions, I've got a couple of things that could answer some questions, and talk about why we decided where the best place for the entrance was, and the turn lanes and things like that. The turn lanes and the location of the entrance are really a function of the geometry that was already out there. Holland Road is already a three lane road, meaning there was already a turn lane. And, I'm getting a little mixed up here with some of this. There was already a turn lane, I believe at Sugar Maple? There was already a left turn lane there. Henry Livas: Do you want to use the pointer? Ric Lowman: Yes. I always forget about this thing? Right here (pointing to PowerPoint). There was already a left turn lane here at Sugar Maple, and I believe there is already a left turn lane down here at this entrance. So, really the only thing that made sense through this section because he had to add a left lane for his development. There are no bones about it. There had to be a left turn lane at this location. Now, with this being widened to a three lane section here, and it his already being a three lane section down here, we had to keep it a three lane section throughout. The only way to make the left turn lanes work and Bob Miller can correct me ifhe feels differently. The only way we can get this existing left turn lane and this left turn lane to work and to widen it, it would be silly to narrow it back down to two lanes. You couldn't do it in this little distance here. So, it is a function of geometry. We had to get these lined up with each other to make the left turns work or otherwise the people from Barberry, if they were to put the entrance here, the people from Barberry would have had to turn across the left lane from the shopping center to get into their neighborhood. So, it was in the best interest of all the geometries there. It is very complex the way the number of entrances are. So, that is why that is the way it is. Now, the turn lane for Barberry, I don't believe in my opinion. It's not going to encourage more traffic to come through there. Barberry doesn't actually go all the way through to Princess Anne. It comes around and it ties into Winterberry and Winterberry comes in. Based on the traffic volume from the traffic study that the developer did, the existing counts on Barberry and Holland Road, they were not indicative of a cut- through problem. If it is speed that is an issue, I would encourage the neighborhood to be in touch with us in Public Works and Traffic Engineering to talk about maybe getting them included in a traffic calming program, if they are not already. With the number of petitions from the neighborhood, we'll come out and will include them in the Traffic Calming Program. We'll study the speeds. We'll get police enforcement if is warranted. We do that already so it is not really a volume, in our opinion that's the issue. If it is speed, we'll certainly deal with that. It won't be exacerbated by the shopping center, in our opinion. Let me see. The distance from the left turn lane that Kenny Slobodkin talked about. We had to limit it to 100 feet because again, there is back to back left lanes here, and here. We had to make them equal and 100 feet is bout enough for four cars. The only thing that I'm going to disagree with Eddie on is the left turn lanes and the widening it to three lanes there in front of the entrance. There isn't going to be any room for a car to go halfway and stop because it is only 12 foot wide, and as most of you that have cars that are 16 feet long, everybody knows what happens when a car tries to do that. Their back end hangs out and nobody wins. I think that is it unless you guys have anything. Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 19 Janice Anderson: Okay. Are there any questions? Henry Livas: In general, you're saying this proposed project doesn't create a real traffic problem in general. Ric Lowman: I didn't say that. What I said was that the turn lanes are going to help the neighborhood. It is a bad situation out there already. Holland Road is over capacity. I'd hope that Princess Anne Road, which is scheduled to be in construction next year, and that is fully funded, to widen it from two to four lanes. I would hope that some of the traffic on Holland would switch over to Princess Anne once it is built just some of it. I'm not saying it is going to solve all of their problems. But there are problems getting on to that road in the morning and the afternoons already. This shopping center is going to exacerbate that for the people on Barberry. I mean the traffic impact study show that it is not going to make it better. The delay is going to be on the side street. It is going to make the traffic on Holland Road flow better because there are turn lanes but on the side streets for the cars trying to make a left turn out of the neighborhood and out of the shopping center, it is going to make it harder because of the increase in traffic. There are no doubts about it. One additional car would make it harder. Henry Livas: An:! development in there may increase it. Ric Lowman: YI:S. Henry Livas: Would this increase it more than any type of development? I guess you put office buildings in there and mayhe would be better but it might not be profitable. Ric Lowman: No. You're asking about traffic wise? Henry Livas: Traffic. Ric Lowman: Traffic wise? It is obviously from the sheet, the handout that I've given and I've talked with a couple of members from that are in opposition. Obviously retail is the highest of the three uses he is considering. Retail is the highest generating use. So, if you were to ask me on how to reduce it in impact, an office complex. Again, not speaking to the profitability or marketability, the office would be the less intense w;e of anything they show. Again you asked me to talk about traffic. Donald Horsley: I have a question. Janice Anderson: Go ahead. Donald Horsley: What is your comment? They mentioned that VDOT wants to close Barberry. Ric Lowman: Y t:s. Donald Horsley: And one speaker said why don't you go ahead and close it now? Ric Lowman: He VDOT project, again it was part of the negotiations. I believe. I wasn't with the city when these discu:;sions were had. These plans have been pretty much 90 percent to 100 percent. One guy said ten year:; and it s true. There just hasn't been money to fund the project. They could petition the city to do that ahead of the project. Again, because I don't know what the negotiations were. Donald Horsley: It seems like a bunch of them would support that. From what I understand today, they support that and that would eliminate their problem. I: Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c. Page 20 Ric Lowman: It would help them on Barberry but Winterberry would feel the effects. Donald Horsley: Then we got to hear from Winterberry people. Ric Lowman: Winterberry would have to weight into it because now the traffic on Winterberry would be double what it is today. Donald Horsley: It's going to happen when VDOT closes it anyway right? Rich Lowman: Yes. Donald Horsley: Okay. Ric Lowman: Like we said, VDOT is going to make it a four lane road and what's going to happen you're not going to get the cue of traffic and you're going to get more gaps on Holland Road. So, turning left out of there is going to be a lot easier. And when VDOT does four lanes it there will be a median open in the middle so you can go halfway. And then finish your trip, so you will only have to do half of your decision points at one time. So, Winterberry will be a lot better when VDOT does the four lanes on Holland. And to say that it is 2019 or 2020, I don't' think that anybody has ever committed to a date when it would be or wouldn't be. If for some reason the city gets an enormous amount of money from the recovery plan, which we are for other projects but if we get more money, the city could obviously bind it to put it on Holland. If there is a new revenue stream that comes out of whatever the new legislation, there could be new monies from VDOT as well. So, I hear the snickering. We all know that it is not likely they are going to come up with a lot of money. Donald Horsley: Not likely. Ric Lowman: So, but it could be accelerated if there is money for it. Janice Anderson: Go ahead AI. Al Henley: Ric, travel back south a little bit to where Nimmo Parkway connected between Princess Anne and then Holland Road. When is that particular section of Nimmo supposed to be completed? Do you know? Ric Lowman: That is shifting a little bit as well. I mean Dave Hanson, Deputy City Manager just made a presentation to City Council last Tuesday during the budget reconciliation. Officially it is 2014 to begin construction for Nimmo but there is other plans that if more money comes in and it is very likely that Virginia Beach will see additional recovery money. If that comes to fruition and if everything works, they could move that up to begin construction in 2012 but now as it sits, I believe in the current CIP it is 2014. Al Henley: Okay. I know that was at one time that was on a fast track and also to connect it all the way to the Princess Anne Recreation Center. That is why I was asking. I know it takes a lot of burden to track. The reason why I'm asking you that question because if that was moved up and we did receive the extra funds, in your opinion would that takes a lot of traffic off Holland Road to Princess Anne Road? Ric Lowman: It would take traffic off of Holland Road. Did you ask about the one little portion between Holland? Okay. That part of Nimmo is actually and I'm sorry for the answer to that. That part of Nimmo is actually included in the Princess Anne project. Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 21 Al Henley: That is what I'm saying. Ric Lowman: It's an "L" project. Princess Anne comes down to Nimmo Parkway and then it comes over to Kellam. So that is part of the project. I think that will be completed I think in 2013 there. Al Henley: It wOllld take some traffic off of Holland? Ric Lowman: I fi~ellike it would because Holland is not fun in the afternoon to drive down or in the mornings. And with Princess Anne being a straight shot and being four lanes in a parkway section, of course there is going to be more traffic. Al Henley: I think if! understood you correctly and the reason why the developer of this site is improving the turn lane movements for those three neighborhood is to accommodate the traffic for those neighborhood is not to accommodate the traffic obviously for the complex propose but it is to accommodate th{: current traffic down some to alleviate and improve some of the turn lane movements for those neighborhood. Ric Lowman: Yes. Al Henley: Okay. That is what I thought you said. Ric Lowman: And a lot of what I said is function of what he has got to do anyway. So, there are some improvements that go over and above that are just going to be benefits for the neighborhood. If I was trying to turn into my neighborhood from Holland Road, just as a resident, forget the cut-through people, I would surely want to sit in a left turn lane and not having people bearing down on me. Al Henley: In reality, I mean what I have seen and I don't recall a project of this particular size, which is not that large with that type of development that is proposed to and extend the enormous amount of right- of-way improvements for an existing highway. That is completely unheard of. I don't recall of one other than Dam Neck Square, I believe it is with a large shopping center on Princess Anne and Dam Neck Road. This is virtually a small project. If it was a residential neighborhood, the amount of services that would be demanding on City government, you're talking about the sewage, the water, the trash pickup. It is a 24/7. These offices are going to close up at 11 :00 at night. And everyone goes home. Bedrooms light up at 11 :00 pm. So, I think the amount of traffic that would be generated from this is much less in demand much less from City government if it was an office complex like is proposed rather than a single- family development. Am I correct on that? Ric Lowman: It depends on how many homes can be put. AI; Henley: That is true. Ric Lowman: Wl1at zoning level? What would be allowed ifit was residential? The highest generation uses is retail. So, residential is a little bit less intense. Al Henley: Well for school children and so forth. There was a comment made earlier about the daycare centers. There were a couple of daycare centers in my neighborhood and they were fully occupied before the roof was put on the place, so the demand for those child daycare is because both of the parents had to work in this day wd time, and they need child daycare services. I can't recall any child daycare service other than the ont across from Kellam High School. I just wanted to make sure that I understood where you were coming from especially on the turn lane move and those improvements. I' Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 22 Ric Lowman: yes. The movements to the neighborhood are improved. Al Henley: Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Janice Anderson: A couple of more. Jay? Jay Bernas: Do you think if we eliminated the retail they would have to do that much right-of-way improvements because if you're looking at the retail and the trip generation, it is like five times the office space and four times daycare because they are going to be spending a lot of money making those right-of- way improvements. Ric Lowman: Like I said, the right-of-way improvements are and once you have to put this left turn lane in you have to do this widening, and you have to do some of this widening because of the left turn lane into it because of the geometry. Jay Bernas: So in either way? Ric Lowman: You guys with the geometry and maybe Mr. Miller, if you needed him to but if you put this left turn lane in you're going to need most of this and most of this. Maybe some of it could be saved but I think just the daycare center alone you would need to have a left turn lane on Holland Road. Maybe the right turn lane wouldn't be required but the left turn lane if you put a daycare center in there or an office complex, a left turn a minimum is going to be needed. And that is going to spur some of the extra widening just because of the geometry that already exists out there. Janice Anderson: Okay. Ric, the question I have is this improvement to the roadways. It is not going to make the roadway any better but you looked at the phased development. So, they are only doing those two proposals, the daycare and the front building for the first phase. With these improvements without this development, I guess it wouldn't be done until 2020 when they are supposed to the full Holland Road. Does that work? Ric Lowman: I'm not sure. Janice Anderson: Is it acceptable with that limited development on that first phase. You've looked at their phasing. Ric Lowman: Right. Janice Anderson: I know it doesn't make it any better. Ric Lowman: Right. It is not really Traffic Engineering's position to come out with a position on it. Is it too much? We tell you what the impacts are and it's the Planning Department and the Planning Commission and City Council. I don't want to push the decision but the decision whether it is too much or too little. Like I said, the roadway is over capacity. So, any additional cars on Holland Road there would be an impact to Holland Road. The improvements that they are doing are mandated by the intensity of the development. Like I told Jay, if it is just the daycare center, the same improvements would be required as the full. As what they proposing with Phase I, and don't get it wrong. The improvements they are making on Holland Road, they are no way near the depth of traffic relief that we're going to see when VDOT comes through with their project. VDOT's project is the answer. This is a band-aid to help us get through this shopping center. Janice Anderson: Okay. Item #22 Endeavor Entetprises, L.L.C. Page 23 Ronald Ripley: Madame Chair, I have one question. The retail calculation you made for traffic is that based on the neighborhood retail or is that based on some general retail calculation you used for all retail? Ric Lowman: Their traffic engineer actually came up with the trip generation. But I think I could speak for him and ifD,ve (developer's traffic engineer) wants to correct me afterwards but the trip generation is for a shopping cwter. The trip generation manual doesn't really account for the differences between like a neighbor shopping center with uses that are just really limited in scope and people will not be driving from miles and miles around to come to this shopping center. But, if there is a restaurant in there it will still be filled just as much as a restaurant. The size of it is going to dictate how many customers they get. Ronald Ripley: 1 understand that. But would it be a practical assumption that a neighborhood shopping center of a less irtense use might generate less traffic maybe then what would be normally projected? Would that be a reasonable assumption Ric Lowman: That would be a reasonable assumption to some level that traffic could be lower but he is going to fill it wi:h 5,000 of restaurant and 11,000 of retail. He wants it to be just as full as if he had a retail establishment that kind of drew. I think it is more function of the amount of space rather than the type of business. We can't be guaranteed what businesses are going to be coming except this is going to be shopping centl~r. Ronald Ripley: We might get some more of these karate studios for example where they won't have a big user of a lot of space but not a lot of people. So you don't really know. I understand. Ric Lowman: No sir. These are just generalizations. Ronald Ripley: You're working off these matters. David Redmond: Except we can't assume that they are going to adhere to the restrictions of the B-IA zoning. It is not] ike B-2 zoning. And if you sort of a shopping center designation, that can be B-2,which I think is probabl)' a lot more trip generations than B-IA in some sort of neighborhood less intense sort of retail establishment then if you have a B-2 where you have convenience stores and the rest of them. Ric Lowman: Right. There is some. David Redmond: We can extrapolate that much from them what we're looking at. Ric Lowman: Yes. Absolutely. No. There is some research that shows that the shopping center trip generation category is over estimating it. Over estimating the general shopping center because those rates include out parces, which this won't have any out parcels. So, it is probably overestimated it a little bit but to be conservative, we used the best available information, and that is what their consultant has used. I believe he has done his analysis one hundred percent the right way. David Redmond: Okay. Janice Anderson: Thanks Ric. Yes Bob. Go ahead. Bob Miller: My name has been used. I thought I should at least come up. Janice Anderson: That is fine. Bob Miller: I'm Hob Miller with MSA. Forgive me again, I didn't sign a card. After the fact. I I' Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 24 apologize. You didn't have to pronounce my name. I just wanted to make sure that the improvements that were showing like Ric said on Holland Road are the improvements that have been asked for the development. These are things that have to be done in order for the development to be done. Ifwe were only putting a daycare in here, we wouldn't be doing anywhere near this kind of amounts of improvements. These are extensive. There is no doubt about it. I understand the questions about turn lanes and other roads and things like that. That is not something we chose to define. We didn't define any of that. We only defined our development and dealing with our development. If you were just doing a daycare center, you would not be doing these kinds of improvements on Holland Road. Just to make that everybody understands. I don't know if that was the total of what you were asking, and how Ric was trying to explain it to you. Dave Beardsley, who is from VHB, is our Traffic Engineer. He can answer some of the other questions if there are specific things you want answered. But I think that was the tone that I was hearing. If there is something else I need to answer, 1'11 be happy to do it since you used my name. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? Go ahead. Phil Russo: If you were just putting in a daycare you would be doing some improvements on Holland Road. Bob Miller: Very minor improvements on Holland Road. Because it just doesn't generate that kind of traffic. But obviously this is a 20 acre piece of land. You wouldn't be just doing just a daycare unless it was kind of super daycare center. Dave Beardsley: I'm David Beardsley. I'm with VSB, Traffic Engineer. I would actually say and I think Ric mentioned this a little bit earlier. The daycare itself does generate some traffic to it. It is not a significant amount. It is about half of what the first phase of development is. But that probably would warrant a left turn lane installation in which then would cause this widening to occur through here. The only improvement that it might not require is that right turn lane into the site. But as soon as you have that left turn lane in the middle of the road, you've got to widen to an extent from north and south of that just for the lane transition around that left turn lane. So, as soon as you start talking about even the daycare use, you're going to be requiring some significant infrastructure improvements. Bob Miller: So, he contradicts what I say. That is okay. He's the expert on traffic engineering. Forgive me. Is there anything else? Janice Anderson: Is there anything else? Donald Horsley: What is your name again? Henry Livas: How soon they forget. Janice Anderson: Are there any other questions? I got a question of Mr. White. Stephen White: Yes sir. Donald Horsley: We keep going back to this intensity of the site. And I guess the 11,000 and 5,000, the 16,000 retail is where the intensity that is not really agreed on by staff. What is the right figure to put there? Stephen White: Mr. Horsley, I don't know if we could give you a figure. It is a professional judgment that the staff has made that while yes, the surrounding residential area is fairly dense. There is a Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 25 difference between density and intensity. We usually apply intensity to non-residential uses. But it is our thinking that there is simply too much retail here. It is retail that we think you would find in a retail corp. area. So, our professional recommendation to you is that this project is too intense for that purpose. And that is what we mean by intensity. I can't tell you if2,000 feet of retail is appropriate or 5,000 feet retail, but a neighborhood oriented retail would be appropriate. Something that the citizens could come to in the evening, even ifi:; a mom and pop kind of thing, a 7/eleven would not even be appropriate without gas pumps. But somtthing that serves the neighborhood. Retail beyond that would be inappropriate in our OpInIOn. Janice Anderson: Go ahead AI. Al Henley: Mr. White, let me ask you a question. Assuming that BRAC did not exist and we were in the road looking at ths that this particular 20 acres could be developed without any of those restrictions from BRAC committee, would this particular parcel be attractive to mixed use? Stephen White: 11 depends on the definition of mixed use. Al Henley: The mixed use meaning residential and business commercial. Stephen White: If there was no BRAC involved in this, I don't think staff would even be entertaining non-residential USI~S. This is a residential area. The Comprehensive Plan identifies it as a residential area and always has, and residential consistent with the density of the surrounding area would be at that point appropriate. We recommended favorably for the applicants previous project that was residential. Things happened and things changed. That was out of the planning staff control. But I don't see a no-residential use without BRAe being appropriate at this location. Al Henley: Okay. With that comment assuming BRAC did not exist, what would be the density of the single- family residential development on these 20 acres? Stephen White: Can we go back to the zoning map? You got R-7.5 and R-IO. It would probably be 3'12 or 4 dwelling uniW per acre. It is what the surrounding density is. Al Henley: Three to four units per acre and that's taking into consideration there is going to be a certain amount of open space as well and trails. Stephen White: That is the thing. It's a constrained site. You got environmental issues but if you can design it to get the residential in there. Yes the density is appropriate. Al Henley: Okay. Thank you very much. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Jay. David Redmond: I don't think this is ideal. It doesn't sound to me like anybody things this is ideal. Assuming we didn't have BRAC. But we do have BRAC, which changed all sorts of things across the city. In some cases, much to our chagrin and there are lots of places, huge swath, tens of thousands of acres that were impacted as a result. This is one of them. Density? Intensity? I think Landstown Commons is aboul 500,000 square feet. Courthouse Market Place, which is right over is about 150,000 square feet. This is a very, very small piece of retail on this property as retail goes in the least intensity category of retail that you can have but the B-2 designation, which is just general commercial. This is restrictive would be unquestionably more intense. This is as low as it gets on about as small a building that you can get. I think too often what we do is kind of toss out these sort of alternatives as though those are realistic. If! said Mr. Ripley, who develops a residential multi-family units, you know, senior I Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c. Page 26 housing. Take 40 units and put a fitness center in there just because it would be much nicer for the people in there just obliterates the economics of what he is trying to do. If 1 told Mr. Horsley take out 20 acres of Soy beans and plant mint. Does he have a market for mint? Does mint make any sense? Do all of the inputs that he puts into that make sense with mint? When we say something like well, what if there was no retail? We can sort make assumptions like that but they don't in the real world make any real sense. When you're in business, Mr. Strange, 1 was going to pick on you to but I decided not to. We see things, all too casually without recognizing behind it. There are some real complicated financials that have to work. On 20 acres, 16,000 square feet is a puny amount of retail. You can typically get about 10,000 square feet per acre. That is about an Auto Zone for instance. It takes about a 10,000 foot building. It takes about an acre including all of the parking which is required in retail, which is more intense and if you were to do sayan office use. It requires much more parking. All of judgments are necessarily subjective. All of the folks that are opposed to it have their own subjective judgments. I have my own. I'm sure the applicant has his. But when I look at this, I see an awful lot of trees on that plan. I see a multi-purpose path that is to the City's benefit. Ultimately, I think it will be everyone's benefit. You may not see that and disagree with. That is okay. I think it is a parcel that is surrounded by development. If this was in Pungo, I would have a different view. 1 would probably have a different view but it is not. It is in a heavily developed corridor. Holland Road, we can't change Holland Road. It has taken decades to get Holland Road to where it is. The only thing that is going to change Holland Road is money and plenty of it, which is not that easy to come by these days. Be that as it may, I have never seen an applicant proffer road improvements, off site, as significant as these are. I've never seen them for something this small. So, when I look at this, I think it is and we all got dealt this hand by BRAC unfortunately but on this parcel of 20 acres, and what the applicant is proposing, and by any of the measures that I've ever applied to these sort of things. Not just modest but small. So, whenever we have something this substantial and significant as this, somebody leaves disappointed, mad and somebody will again, I'm sure. But, I think given the hand that we have been dealt, this is as reasonable as it gets. I don't think you can make it any smaller or make it a whole lot more different and not have the entire basis just collapse. We certainly can't make it up. We can't just sort of say well, lets' change the soybeans to mints. That doesn't make any sense for us to do that. I'm going to support it. I hope like the dickens that we get an awful lot of money for Holland Road improvements, and Princess Anne Road improvements, and lots of other places around the city. They are long time overdue. But my judgment the infrastructure improvements that he has proffered here are pretty extraordinary. I don't think he can really expect a whole lot more than that of anything of this size. So, anyway, I appreciate the forbearance and you all for coming down here. You have beautiful neighborhoods. I spent some time in them. Jay Bernas: I kind of look at it from a different eye then Commissioner Redmond. Obviously it has to be non-residential. So, what's the next least impacted thing to put there? To me, it's office. I think you put in retail there, and you're driving down Holland Road in a primarily residential neighborhood, retail to me doesn't make any sense. You're going to drive by there and it is going to seem unplanned, out of place. It is going to be "what in the world" were they thinking putting retail in the middle of this vast. Look at Holland Road? It is all residential throughout that entire corridor. To me, from a planning sense, just retail it just doesn't make sense. And, it's got the double whammy of exacerbating the traffic situation. You look at these numbers you were given conservative or not, they're multiples higher than the office and the daycare. So, in my mind, my two concerns are retail is out of place, and if we're going to do something non-residential. What makes sense in non-residential and to me, office. I think daycare is okay. But retail, like I said seems out of place and the traffic is a huge concern. It is already on a roadway that is over capacity and now we're potentially going to exacerbated it by approving retail which is going to have a higher average daily trip rate. So, those are my two main concerns. Besides from the business aspect, it may not make economic sense but we've got to look at the bigger picture of the entire neighborhood and the entire community and how it impacts the community because there are economic impacts there as well. So, that is just my two concerns. Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c. Page 27 Janice Anderson: Thanks Jay. Henry and then Joe. Henry Livas: I would like to say that I support Dave's position on this. I like the way that he analyzed it with numbers. I'm an engineer. I like to hear numbers, square footage and things like that. Unfortunately, our Planning Department said it is just too intense. And as I read the book last night, I couldn't put a number on that or anything specific. And, now I hear that this type of shopping center is not that large compared with others. Also, I think that because ofBRAC, if we could error or give a node to the applicant, I think we should because the applicant has been getting turned down by us and City Council. They even had to go to court; so, I think it's not fair to give them real strict interpretation on something they have proposed that is within the law of that zoning. So, I think we should cut them some slack if there is an area to deal with, and certainly think we do in this case because the zoning doesn't tell you how much square footage of retail you can have. We just have to go by experience but what doesn't look like a lot. Dave is the retail man. He doesn't think it looks like a lot. So, I'm supporting the applicant. Janice Anderson: Thank you Henry. . Joseph Strange: I have to agree with Dave also. I think the question here is what is the least intrusive use for this property under the circumstances? I go along with Jay. A nice beautiful office park there would be good except that it just wouldn't pay for itself. And retail doesn't cost much to build the building and you get to charge :nore for it. So, it's retail. It's just more profitable then office space. So, you got to have some retail in there to make it work. I mean we're talking about 11,000 square foot. What are we talking about two 5,000 square foot stores? You know. 750? 100 square foot stores? I mean, we're not talking about 50 stores. We're not probably taking about 10 stores here. We're talking about 7 stores probably or something of that nature. We're not talking about a regional shopping center. We're talking about a neighborh)od business that is going to be in there. I am a small business person. I would like to think that you get that kind of traffic in your stores every day. The average small business person, he is not getting that kind of traffic in the store. The average neighborhood person is getting the small amount of traffic. He's a ~;pecialty retailer in most cases. I understand the communities concern here. I live off of Indian River Road. Every time I see something new coming in there, I blink my eyes. I say "Golly", something else. So I really do understand their concern. I just think this is the least that you can put in there, and make this work. I'm surprised. When Eddie says a big developer wouldn't give you all of this, I believe that. I don't believe a big develop would give you all of this. I believe that these people and I don't know anything about them except they are small developers. They probably are kind of strapped for money. They probably are strapped and say let's get this thing going. We got to do something to get some money coming through the door. That is the way I see it. I think an office park would be beautiful but I just don't thi1k it would work. I think this is the least intrusive. I think the neighborhood will find out that this is not going to be as bad as they think it is. And is it going to be bad? Is it going to add traffic? Of course it is but if you stop and look at if there were 50 houses in there. We're looking at numbers on my chart. There is a difference between this and agriculture. It doesn't show the difference between this and SO or 60 homes in there. So, when you start to look at everything relatively speaking, I think this is the least intense you're going to get in there, and make it work. Janice Anderson: Thanks Joe. Are there any other comments? Ronald Ripley: I have just one quick comment. I'm going to support the application as well. I think when I look at thi5 land use plan. I think the market is going to determine who uses this. And, I think you might find and I haven't been around to look at lot of these little neighborhood strips, it ends up being occupied by a church companies and different little neighborhood uses that really are not very intense commercial use. They really act like an office for the most part. I would probably and this Building 3 could end up being all office. What the applicant would be doing is foreclosing his ability to put any kind Item #22 Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. Page 28 of retail on this ifhe did this all office. I think he has tried to cut it back. And it looks like. We saw a number of different iterations of this site, and it looks there has been a lot of attempt to reduce the intensity. I think the intensity is reasonable personally. I'm going to support it. Janice Anderson: Go ahead Don. Donald Horsley: Okay. There are two or three things that I want to mention. One is the intensity thing. I appreciate staffs comment about the intensity but you know, I agree with the folks that have spoken and said they can kind of go along with the intensity, and I think I can too. The thing that I disagree with, and whoever came up with the figure of 3,000 extra cars, 1 don't think we're going to see 3,000 extra cars on Holland Road because of this. A lot of the people that are going to patronizing these businesses are going to be regular traffic that goes down Holland Road anyway. And it may provide some of their trips shorter ifit the use is there they can get without having to drive further, and they will cut in there and live in that area, I think they will support that. So, I don't see the extra 3,000. I'm not a Trafficologist or whatever the new terminology I heard on the TV about some of these people ought to become traffic experts. But, I just don't see that happening. I kind offeellike the improvements that the applicant is going to make to Holland Road I consider it low intensity for this site. I think the neighborhood in the long run is what Joe or somebody said, I think in the long run they won't realize the fear they have now. So, I plan to support the application also. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Go ahead Dave. David Redmond: I move approval of the application. Janice Anderson: A motion by Dave Redmond. We have a second by Phil Russo. AYES NAYl ABSO ANDERSON AYE BERNAS NAY CRABTREE HENLEY AYE HORSLEY AYE KA TSIAS LIVAS AYE REDMIOND AYE RIPLEY AYE RUSSO AYE STRANGE AYE ABSENT 2 ABSENT ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 8- I, the application of Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. had been approved. Janice Anderson: Thank you all for coming down. We're going to conclude the meeting. Thank you. Map HI 11 Ed E . LLC , - n eavor nterIJr'lses. M~p Not to Sc~le ~~4~W 70-75 B Ldn ,., .c., ~ .." u ~ lIIl.' p., .,....~. ;4'~ 0:)~ . ~ ''- ~~~ . ~ p., .c.' 1-1 ~ _ I '\ " - t:7- ' . ",. , ' L '(...d"" " ~. ~ ~, ~~/] ~ ~L. . . v ~' ~Ld~' ~ ,<' ( . , :A t Ii\'\ ~ '.J D ~I- i }1l\ r ~.~~ ~ ., "'~ ... j ']~!O\ "' ~~~ W - ~ '. ... ='" ~ \c-' J-; ~ '" I" & ..iIII~~ ~ ~ Tn.. - T\ ~ .:t. Y/. ~ ~~y ~~ ~ 7'"'T1' ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ vi. .I r-I "'lJ- ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ IV: '~~ ~ ~ .J, :/~ K oy;~ ,.~ '/ ~ ~.'~ Cl L~ ~~ '\.i '\ ~~ :\. ~ ~ ..'~~:- ~ ~~ t x....,.-J.~\."{ ., r.l~ fWol , t7"'J1 v..n;,7"~ ~ ~ v t:'M"'~~~~ ' !ji ... y "'~~ '" ~ ~,,~ r7TLf/ ~ IT H'\ 0:-' \-- T fII7)(}( '}"o A V' / /-A / Conditional Zoning Change from AG-1 and AG-2 to Conditiona B1-A ! II Ii CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No, DF6518 DATE: October 30,2009 FROM: Mark D. Stiles B. Kay Wilson~ DEPT: City Attorney TO: DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application; Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C. The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 10,2009. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated October 5,2009 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 /ka Enclos/ cc:~thleen Hassen ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company RADHAKRISHNA RENUKUNTA and KAVITHA VURIMINDI aJkJa KAVITHI VURIMr'.JDI, husband and wife NEW ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CIlY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of October, 2009, by and between ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part, Grantor; RADHAKRISHNA RENUKUNTA and KAVITHA VURIMINDI ajkja KA VITHJ: VURIMINDI, husband and wife, parties of the second part, Grantors; NEW ENDEAVOR ENTERPRISES, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the third part, Grcmtor; and THE CIlY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the fourth part, Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of two (2) parcels of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 6.158 acres as more particularly described as Parcell and Parcel 2 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which parcels along with Parcel 3 is hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the third part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Princl~ss Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 13.77 acres as more particularly described as Parcel 3 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which parcel along with Parcels 1 and 2 are hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and GPIN: 1495-41-7336 1495-51-2696 1495-51-9518 PREPARED BY: Prepared By: R. Edward Bourdon, Jr., Esquire Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C. 281 Indeperldence Blvd. Pembroke One, Fifth Floor Virginia Beech, Virginia 23462 ma SVJa:S. BOlilWON, ~.. AIIUlN & U:Vy, P.c. 1 I' PREPARED BY: ~ SYl:J:S. I}OlJm lON. mil '\IIWN &. lJ:VY. !l.r. WHEREAS, the party of the first part as the contract purchaser of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District to Conditional B-1A Commercial District and P-1 Preservation 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 development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantors' proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which have 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 makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the portion of the Property zoned B-lA is developed, it shall be developed and landscaped substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT & LANDSCAPE PLAN OF VILLAGE CENTER at HOLLAND CREEK", 2 PREPARED BY: prepared by Ionic DeZign Studios and MSA, P.C., dated 09/29/09, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Conceptual Site Plan"). 2. When the Property is developed, the exterior building materials, colors and architectural design elements of the four (4) buildings designated on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be substantially as depicted on the exhibits entitled "VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLAND CREEK - TYPICAL RETAIL BUILDING ELEVATION; VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLAND CREEK - DAYCARE ELEVATION; and VILLAGE CENTER AT HOLLAND CREEK -- OFFICE BUILDING ELEVATION", dated 03/04/09, 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 "Building Elevations"). 3. When the Property is developed, the Grantor shall make those road improvements to Holland Road as depicted on the exhibit entitled "Conceptual Right of Way Improvement Plan For Village Center at Holland Creek", dated 12/9/08, prepared by MSA, P.C., which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Right of Way Improvements"). 4. When the Property is developed, if the improvement and widening of Holland Road to four (4) through lanes of vehicular capacity from its intersection with Dam Neck Road, south to its intersection with Chestwood Drive has not commenced, only the buildings designated "#1, Single Story Daycare 9,315 square feet" and "#2, Single Story 25,000 square feet total" on the Conceptual Site Plan may be developed. No occupancy of the buildings designated "#3, Single Story 9,000 square feet" and "#4, 2-Story Office 17,000 square feet" on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be permitted until (a) the improvement and widening of Holland Road to four (4) through lanes of vehicular capacity from Dam Neck Road to its intersection with Chestwood Drive has been completed (Phase II); or (b) July 1,2020 whichever shall first occur. 5. The Grantor shall not be required to install that portion of 8' Privacy Fencing along the northwestern section of the Property's perimeter, as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, until construction plans for Building "#3, Single Story 9,000 square feet total" are approved by Grantee. 6. The Building designated "#2, Single Story 25,000 square feet total" on the Conceptual Site Plan shall have (a) no more than 4,500 square feet of space occupied by restaurart uses, none of which may serve or sell any alcoholic beverages; (b) no more than Sv!:[s. 1-101 limoN. AJlnlN &. L[VY. ilL 3 PREPARED BY 13m SYKIS HI llIHl)! IN, M ,\IlIJIN lit IXVY. i'.r. I' 7,500 square feet of space occupied by any of the following service uses permitted in the B- lA zoning district: veterinary establishments; financial institutions (which shall not include "pay day" loan services which shall not be permitted); funeral homes; repair services, dry cleaning agencies; medical and dental clinics and offices; museums and art galleries; commercial printers; personal service establishments, other than those listed separately; and (c) all remaining space in Building #2 shall be occupied by office uSeS. No retail uses shall be permitted on the Property. 7. The Building designated "#3, Single Story 9,000 square feet total" on the Conceptual Site Plan shall have (a) no more than 5,000 square feet of space occupied by any of the service uses listed in the preceding proffer numbered 6; and (b) all remaining space in Building #3 shall be occupied by office uses. No retail uses shall be permitted on the Property. 8, Prior to submittal of a Site Development Plan for the Buildings designated "#3, Single Story 9,000 square feet total" and "#4, 2-Story Office 17,000 square feet" (i,e. Phase II), Grantor shall prepare and submit a "Supplemental Traffic Impact Study" to the Director of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 9. The Grantor proffers that building "#4, 2-Story Office 17,000 square feet total" shall only be used for office uses and not be used for any retail, restaurant or service uses, except those service uses which may be permitted in the 0-2 Office Zoning District. 10. The Grantor proffers that building "#1, Single Story Daycare 9,315 square feet" shall only be used for an educational/child daycare or office uses and shall not be used for any retail, restaurant or service uses, except those service uses which may be permitted in the 0-2 Office Zoning District. 11. When the Property is developed, only one (1) freestanding monument style sign may be erected on the Property, constructed with a base matching the material and predominant color of the buildings as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. All building mounted signage shall be channel letters on a raceway (i.e. no block signs) and only the lettering may be illuminated. No sign age may use L.E.D. or a similar electronic display unless it is both (a) permitted in the B-lA Zoning District; and (b) approved in advance by the Director of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 12. When the Property is developed, the dumpsters depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be screened/housed in a masonry structure (3 sides) with the exterior 4 surface matching the building material and color. Dumpsters shall not be tipped/emptied before 8:30 AM nor after 8:30 PM. 13. The hours of daily operation for any educational/child daycare use in the building designated #1, Single Story Daycare 9,315 square feet on the Conceptual Sit Plan shall not commence prior to 6:00 AM nor conclude subsequent to 7:00 PM. 14. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct ligbt down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. The development shall USE' "The Largent" lighting fixtures and a complete photometric plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval during detailed site plan reVIew. 15. When the Property is developed, the Grantor shall install and maintain an 8' wide multi-purpose trail from Holland Road through the open space within the developed portion of the property-, through the open space at the eastern end of the center and terminating at the 5.18 acres ofland to be zoned P-1 Preservation District substantially as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. The Grantor shall dedicate to the Grantee a pedestrian access easement over the multi-purpose trail and create a second pedestrian walkway from the multi-purpose trail to the small City owned park which abuts the southern boundary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. 16. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the Property, tbe Grantor shall dedicate to the Grantee, the 5.18 acre portion of the property to be zoned P-1 Preservation District. 17. Prior to Grantee issuing Site Plan approval for any of the development on the Prop2rty as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, Grantors shall have recorded a Private Deed Restriction enforceable by the record title holders to Lots numbers 26 through ~~3 as depicted on the plat of "Subdivision of Greenwood" (recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 280, at Page 84), dedi~ating a Preservation Easement 35 feet in width over that portion ofthe Property which adjoins and runs parallel to the southern boundary of the referenced lots. This Preservation Easement shall require that all trees and vegetation within this area remain undisturbed if the remainder of the parcel is used for any purpose other than a residential PREPARED BY ;J,msvns. lifJlIlI!lIlN, M ,\IIU!N& IJVY. !',{'. use. 5 PREPARED BY ~~)YKL\ HOl 'I;! H IN, ~1J ,\IIUiN 1"< U:VY, 1''/' I' 18. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. All references hereinabove to B-1A and P-1 Districts and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (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; 6 (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantor shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the CIE~rk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantor and the Grantee. PREPARED BY 313SYKIS H,OIII<J>IIN" _ t\lIrHN 1Ix Lrvy, 1'.1', 7 PREPARED BY: !m SYI(Cs, IWIIHlll IN. MI,\lI[lIN &. U:VY. \l.r. I; WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company -., By: "",1 /< _ \ \, // (SEAL) Radhak'risllllil Renukunta, Managing Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of October, 2009, by Radhakrishna Renukunta, Managing Member, of Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. /' / ' I /' ----.. " "'.,' -'/,c71 ,l\, .\. / / -' N~tary Public /" i j//' !~_,.; Il'""",U My Commission Expires: Notary Registration No.: August 31, 2010 192628 8 vVITNESS the following signatures and seals: Grantors: /--....,,\ ,/ " ~ \\ \ " Radh~kl'islki- Ren ukunta (SEAL) 1/ \,Ij/-^,/ j\ rAL-- ! L L. \, (SEAL) Kavitha'Vurimindi a/k/a Kavithi Vurimindi STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of October, 2009, by Radhakrishna Renukunta and Kavitha Vurimindi a/k/a Kavithi Vurimindi, husband and wife, Grantors. ,fit / ,-' , ,t/ jll .' ' / " j --.., ,I A' I 'f\! . , ,;1'\" / ; Notary Public ' , I, ,,- J / I. "?( I / 1','1, /' (' v' .'. .. ,,~ My Commission Expires: Notary Registration No.: August 31, 2010 192628 PREPARED BY: ~SYU_f::.lml~lm()IN: .. AlIU,N &. LLVY.I J. 9 PREPARED BY 3m )y1([S, IJot!1Il H IN. ill AlI[IIN &. L[vy, PF I' WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: New Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.C., a Virginia limitetlliability company ,,~'V ,/...---....~,......~, -,. ,/" ; k / By: Ii,' ~/ (SEAL) Radhakrishna Renukunta, Managing Member STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of October, 2009, by Radhakrishna Renukunta, Managing Member, of New Endeavor Enterprises, L.L.c., a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. j l -' " ''\.i ,.-\ ~/i ~~ ':( ~ , , ! I I ,+,\' /'),-.' ;, Notary Public , I. / ,', f '" /..'/, / I j .'i...............-'.....J My Commission Expires: Notary Registration No.: August 31, 2010 192628 10 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 1: ALL THA r certain lot, piece or parcel of land, lying situate and being in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being designated as "PARCEL A-I" as depicted on the "RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A, SUBDIVISION OF PROPERlY OF AMERICA WILSON ESTATE, AND 'LUCINDA HASKINS 2 ACRES"', dated November 7, 2005, prEpared by Rouse-Sirine Associates, Ltd. and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, as Instrument # 200601040002057. Containing 3.74 acres ofland, more or less. GPIN: 1495-41-7336 PARCEL 2: All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, belonging" lying, situate in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and known, numbered and designated as LUCINDA HASKINS 2 ACRES as shown on that certain plat entitled Property of G. B. Wilson Located in Princess Anne County dated September 12, 1936, prepared by W. B. Gallup, Certified Surveyor, which said plat is recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Oifice in Map Book 10, page 113. GPIN: 1495-41-7336 PARCEL 3: All that certain tract of land, lying being and situate in Seaboard Magisterial District, Princess Anne County, (now City of Virginia Beach), Virginia designated as Lot One (1) on the Plat of HARGROVE FARMS, made by E.E. Burroughs, C.S. for W. W. Sawyer, and recorded in Map Book 1, at Page 6(a), in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Princess Anne County (now City of Virginia Beach), Virginia (erroneously referred to as 25 acres more or less in the previous source deed). Said tract or parcel of land fronts on Holland Road in s,lid District, Princess Anne County (now City of Virginia Beach). Said property being more particularly bounded and described as follows: PREPARED BY Beginning at a point on the eastern right of way of Holland Road, said point of being 67.35 feet northerly from the intersection of the eastern right of way of Holland Road and the northern right of way of Sugar Maple Drive; thence S 75 degrees 30' W. 60,16 feet to a point on the eastern right of way of Holland Road; thence N 7 degrees 24' 47" W. 141.78 feet alon~; the eastern right of way of Holland Road to a point; thence continuing along the eastern right of way of Holland Road N 2 degrees 32' 31" W. 219.90 feet to a point; thence N 87 degrees 20' 11" E. 676.03 feet to a point; thence N 75 degrees 39' 19" E. 113.68 feet to a point; thence N 78 degrees 18' 28" E. 168.64 feet to a point; thence N 76 degrees 44' 20" E. 56.77 feet to a point; thence S 74 degrees 10' 04" E. 75-42 feet to a point; thence N 85 degrees 04' 03" E. 104.19 feet to a point; thence N 52 degrees 34' 24" E. 159.75 feet to a ~.m SVHS. ~Ol mill IN. ail AllmN &. U:VY. P.r. 11 PREPARED BY' ~ SY10S HOlll/llON. WI ,\lIWN &. U:VY. Pf. II point; thence N 26 degrees 34' 53" E. 60-42 feet to a point; thence N 83 degrees 24' IS" E. 113.99 feet to a point; thence N 81 degrees 35' 43" E. 505.80 feet to a point; thence S 86 degrees 38' 25" E. 403.60 feet to a point; thence N 67 degrees 46' 21" E. 362.68 feet to a point; thence N 84 degrees 08' 26" E. 578.52 feet to a point; thence S 3 degrees 44' 54" W. 29,91 feet to a point; thence S 75 degrees 30' W. 3280.13 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 13-43 acres ofland, more or less. GPIN: 1495-51-9518 ConditionalRezone/EndeavorEnterprises/HollandLifcstyleCenter /Proffcr 4_ Clean Rev~l%5/09 12 L. APPOINTMENTS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD PLANNING COMMISSION RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (RAC) REVIEW and ALLOCA nON (COG) VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION II M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT ********************************** PUBLIC COMMENT Non-Agenda Items Each Speaker will be allowed 3 minutes and each subject is limited to 3 Speakers ********************************** Thursday, November 12th ANNUAL JOINT MEETING General Assembly, City Council and School Board City Council Sessions November 17 - Workshop November 24 - Informal and Formal Sessions December 1 and 8 - Informal and Formal Sessions Town Hall Meetings - 2010-11 Municipal Budget Wednesday, November 18, 7:00 PM Green Run High School, 1700 Dahlia Drive Thursday, December 3,7:00 PM Kellam High School, 2323 Holland Road *********** 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] III Ol09afb www.vbgov.com CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMAR Y OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V I DATE: 10/27/2009 L PAGE I D S L E D H E A W AGENDA D S I E J S U- N I ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE A T E D N 0 S H U L W V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0 I P E E E E M I V 0 0 S H L R Y S S N A N D VA CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING: MBC ANNUAL REPORT Delceno Miles, Chair B CHINESE DRYWALL: Assessment of Structures Jerald Banagan, Real Estate Assessor rI/A CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS: INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENT Patricia Phillips, Finance Director B RECOVERY ZONE B Patricia Phillips, Finance Director IlI/IVNNI CERTlFICA TION OF CLOSED CERTIFIED 9-0 Y Y A Y Y Y Y Y Y A y -E SESSION F MINUTES - OCTOBER 13,2009 APPROVED 9-0 Y Y A Y Y Y Y y Y A Y G/H PUBLIC HEARINGS: LEASE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY - NO SPEAKERS Fanner's Market - Seasons Best Bakery, LLC - space 37 I PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD PEMBROKE STRATEGIC GROWTH I SPEAKERS AREA 4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CITY OF VIRGINIA BEJ4CH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V I DATE: 10/27/2009 L PAGE: 2 D S L E D H E A W AGENDA D S I E J S U N I ITEM # SUBJECT MOT1ON VOTE A T E D N 0 S H U L W V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0 I P E E E E M I V 0 0 S H L R Y S S N A N D V),l. Ordinances to AMEND City Code ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y CONSENT a, * 2-17 Smoking in public meetings b, *2-21 re notice of ~ pecial meetings c, *2-39 re voting at ~;pecial meetings d, *2-60 re City Clerl(s duties e, *2-451 re definitior of Boards/Commissi ~ns f. *2-475 re notification of audits 2 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE contract with ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y City Mgr CONSENT 3 Ordinances re COMPENSA TION ADOPTED, BY 9-1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y CONSENT a, City Manager b City Attorney ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y c City Clerk CONSENT d City Real Estate Assessor e City Auditor 4 Resolution to SUPPLEMENT the 2010 ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y Legislative Agenda! propc'se conversion of CONSENT Clerk of Circuit Court to I City agency 5 Resolution to DIRECT investigation re ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y capturing revenue genera :ed by Clerk of CONSENT Circuit Court 6 Resolution to PROVIDE issue/sale of ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y $130M Refunding Bonds CONSENT 7 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE Lease with ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y Seasons Best Bakery, LLC at Fanner's CONSENT Market 8 Ordinance to AUTHORIZE right-in-onlv ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y access at Princess Anne Road/South CONSENT Independence Boulevard for Tailwind Development 9 Ordinance to APPROPRI.\ TE $1,067,000 ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y to ParksIRec re School landscaping CONSENT 10 Resolution DIRECTING lIotice of Public ADOPTED, BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y Hearing to amend/restate Articles of Inc. CONSENT for SPSA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OFCOUNCft ACnONS V I DATE: \0/27/2009 L PAGE: 3 D S L E D H E A W AGENDA D S I E J S U N I ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE A T E D N 0 S H U L W V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0 I P E E E E M I V 0 0 S H L R Y S S N A N D L-l McRJERS, LLC, closure of portion of APPROVEDI ]0-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y Jefferson Boulevard at Windsor CONDlTlNED, CrescentJWindsor Crescent north of BY CONSENT Jcfferson Boulevard, DISTRICT 4 - BAYS IDE 2 Variance to ~4.4(b) of the Subdivision ADOPTED 8-1 Y Y Y Y N Y A Y Y A Y Ord that all lots meet CZO for B COASTAL LIVING BUILDERS, S L.L.C./WILLIAM T. T KILEYIHELEN R. PAXTON at 800 A Greensboro Avcnue, DISTRICT 6 - I BEACH DISTRICT N E D 3 Variance to ~4.4(b) of Subdivision Ord that DEFERRED \0-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y all lots meet CZO for WILBERT H. lNDEFlNITEL Y, LAWRENCE, SR., to subdivide 1564 BY CONSENT Back Bay Landing Road, DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 4 BARRY BEHRMAN/ARROWHEAD APPROVED/ \0-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y PLAZA, LLC, Modification of Conditions CONDITIONED, (approved April 27, I 993/January 26, BY CONSENT I 999/March 27, 200 I) rc expansion of existing recreation facility, DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE 5 5105 PRINCESS ANNE, APPROVEDI 9-0 Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y A Y LLC/FUL TON BANK, (ABOUNDING CONDITIONED, B GRACE ASSEMBLY) re a church at BY CONSENT S 5 I 02 Princess Anne Road. DISTRICT 2 - T KEMPSVILLE A ] a, COZ from B-2/J-I to N Conditional B-2 E D b. CUP re religious use 6 NEW FIRST COLONIAL ASSOC COZ DEFERRED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y from R-IS Conditional 0-1 re dental TO 11/10/09, BY office at 5315 Bonncydalc Road, CONSENT DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE 7 ,JESSUP CONSTRUCTION L.L.C. 1 DEFERRED 10-0 Y Y Y Y y y Y Y Y A Y JOHN P. MYERS for a Change of Zonin/( INDEFINITEL Y, District Classification from R-40 BY CONSENT Conditional R-20 in order to create four (4) lots from two (2) existing lots at I 125 and 1129 Trantwood Avenue, DISTRICT 5 - L YNNHA VEN DISTRICT CITY OF VlRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V I DATE: 10/27/2009 L PAGE: 4 D S L E D H E A W AGENDA D S I E J S U N I ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE A T E D N 0 S H U L W V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0 I P E E E E M 1 V 0 0 S H L R Y S S N A N D 8 CITY AMEND 920 I of CZO re Setbacks ADOPTED 8-2 N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y A Y for Piers M APPOINTMENTS: COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD- Reappointed for CSB 3 Yr Term 1/1/10-12/31/12 John T, McGrann Diana G, Ruchelman HISTORIC PRESERV.\ TION Reappointed for COMMISSION 3 Yr Term 1/1/10-12/31/12 Harriett Frenzel William Gambrel Marianne Littel Henry Pearson PLANNING COMMIS1HON Reappointed for 4 Yr Tern] 1/1/10-12/31/13 Jay A. Bernas Albert N, Henley Henry L. Livas, Jr. SENIOR SERVICES OF Reappointed for SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA 2 YrTerm 1/1/10-12/31/10 Glenny N, Harrington Delceno C. Miles VIRGINIA BEACH COYlMUNITY Reappointed for DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 4 Yr Term 1/1/10-12/31/13 Robert N, Templeton, II Emmanuel Voces MILITARY ECONOMIC Reappointed for DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY 5 Yr Term Plus COMMISSION (MEDAC) 10/28/09 - 2/28/15 Admiral Carlton Jewett CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARYOFCOUNCftACnONS V I DATE 10/27/2009 L PAGE: 5 D S L - E D H E A W AGENDA D S I E J S U N I ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE A T E D N 0 S H U L W V E Z Y L N 0 R E S 0 I P E E E E M I V 0 0 S H L R y S S N A N D L/M Councilman Davis presented Mayor Sessoms the VML President's Award of Leadership which he accepted in behalf of the City at the VML Annual Conference N ADOURNMENT 7:22pm NOVEMBER 3RD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP CANCELLED TO ALLOW EVERYONE TO VOTE Thursday, November 12th ANNUAL JOINT MEETING General Assembly, City Council and School Board City Council Sessions November 10 and 24 - Informal and Formal Session November 17 - Workshop December 1 and 8 - Informal and Formal Sessions Town Hall Meetings - 2010-11 Municipal Budget Wednesday, October 28, Larkspur Middle School, 4696 Princess Anne Road Thursday, November S, Princess Anne High School, 4400 Virginia Beach Blvd. Wednesday, November 18, Green Run High School, 1700 Dahlia Drive Thursday, December 3, Kellam High School, 2323 Holland Road