No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-2021 FORMAL SESSION AGENDA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MAYOR ROBERT M. "BOBBY"DYER,At Large J14�'�N�� cy. VICE MAYOR ROSEMARY WILSON,At Large MICHAEL F.BERLUCCHI,Rose Hall-District 3 LINWOOD O.BRANCH,Lynnhaven-District 5 BARBARA M.HENLEY,Princess Anne-District 7 `= r • N.D. "ROCKY"HOLCOMB,Kempsvi/le-District 2 '� '. ?R LOUIS R.JONES,Bayside-District 4 +. >" JOHND.MOSS,At Large o. ou, AARON R.ROUSE,At Large GUY K.TOWER,Beach-District 6 SABRINA D. WOOTEN,Centerville-District I CITY HALL BUILDING CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE CITY MANAGER-PATRICK A.DUHANEY VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-9005 CITY ATTORNEY-MARK D.STILES PHONE:(757)385-4303 CITY ASSESSOR-RONALD D.AGNOR October 19,2021 FAX(757)385-5669 CITY AUDITOR LYNDON S.REMIAS E-MAIL:CITYCOUNCIL@vbgov.com CITY CLERK-AMANDA BARNES MAYOR ROBERT M. "BOBBY" DYER PRESIDING I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS A. FY2021-22 INTERIM FINANCIAL UPDATE 2:30 PM Letitia Shelton, Director—Finance B. STORMWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2:45 PM Toni Utterback, Stormwater Engineering Center Administrator II. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION/INITIATIVES 3:30 PM III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REVIEW 3:45 PM V. INFORMAL SESSION - City Council Chamber- 4:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER—Mayor Robert M. "Bobby" Dyer B. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - City Council Chamber- 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER—Mayor Robert M. "Bobby"Dyer B. INVOCATION: Pastor Tim Dryden New Covenant Presbyterian Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. SPECIAL SESSION September 28, 2021 2. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS October 5, 2021 G. MAYOR'S PRESENTATIONS 1. RESOLUTIONS IN RECOGNITION a. Reba McClanan b. Dale Snodgrass c. The Kirit Shah Temple Premier League H. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. 2022 PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE AGENDA I. PUBLIC HEARING 1. ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT Installment Purchase Agreement for 50.15 +/- acres at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road J. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA K. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTION 1. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE: a. Acquisition of an Agricultural Land Preservation (ARP) easement from Bonnie Woodhouse Crane (50.15 +/- acres) b. Issuance by the City of its contract obligation in the maximum principal amount of $561,680 c. TRANSFER fund to purchase U.S. Treasury Strips 2. Resolution to RATIFY Amendments to the Bylaws re Community Services Board (CSB) 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple and acquisition of temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation re Sandbridge Road—Nimmo Parkway Phase VII-A Project, CIP 100356 4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation re Thalia Creek Greenway Phase 3 Project, CIP 100415 5. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into a portion of City-Owned Property known as Treasure Canal located at the rear of 2224 Windward Shore Drive re construct and maintain rip rap,boat lift,aluminum ramp,two wood piers and a floating wood dock 6. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $1,256,276 from the State Compensation Board to the Sheriff's FY 2021-22 Operating budget re $3,000 bonuses to Deputies 7. Ordinance to ACCEPT $136,429,703 from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds and APPROPRIATE $82,063,098 re Stormwater, Parks and Recreation Infrastructure, and Facilities Capital Projects L. PLANNING 1. MURPHY'S OF VIRGINIA BEACH / STEPHEN YUEN YEE FAMILY, LLC for a Special Exception for Alternative Compliance re convert a portion of parking lot into permanent outdoor space dining area and space for new uses at 2914 Pacific Avenue DISTRICT 6—BEACH RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 2. VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/ VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & FROB, LLC for a Modification of Proffers to a Conditional Change of Zoning update Design Criteria re portion of Corporate Landing Business Park DISTRICT 7—PRINCESS ANNE (Deferred from September 21, 2021) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 3. JTR, LLC / JTR, LLC / BAYLINER BUILDING, LLC & SHORE DRIVE AREA PROPERTIES for Street Closures of partially improved and unimproved portions of right- of-way known as Clipper Bay Drive (approximately 26,414 square feet) and Ocean Tides Drive (approximately 12,252 square feet) DISTRICT 4—BAYSIDE RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL APPLICANT REQUEST DEFERRAL TO DECEMBER 7, 2021 4. MP SHORE DRIVE,LLC/JTR,LLC, BAYLINER BUILDING,LLC, SHORE DRIVE AREA PROPERTIES, LLC, & CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH for a Conditional Change of Zoning from PD-H1 and B-2 Districts to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use and Conditional Use Permit re multi-family dwellings at 3829 & 3785 Shore Drive and adjacent parcels between Marlin Bay Drive and 3829 Shore Drive DISTRICT 4—BAYSIDE RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL APPLICANT REQUEST DEFERRAL TO DECEMBER 7, 2021 M. APPOINTMENTS 5/31 MEMORIAL COMMITTEE 2040 VISION TO ACTION COMMUNITY COALITION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS ADVISORY COMMISSION BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE CLEAN COMMUNITY COMMISSION COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION GRANT(COG)REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATION REVIEW PANEL OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY COMMITTEE OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD TRANSITION AREA/INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE URBAN AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMI 1-1'EE WETLANDS BOARD N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P. ADJOURNMENT The Agenda(including all backup documents) is available at https://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/city-clerk/city-council under the eDocs Document Archive. If you would like to receive by email a list of the agenda items for each Council meeting,please submit your request to TChelius@vbgov.com or call 385-4303. Citizens who wish to speak can sign up either in-person or virtually via WebEx. Anyone wishing to participate virtually,must follow the two-step process provided below: 1. Register for the WebEx at: https://vbgov.webex.com/vbgov/onstage/g.php?MTID=e736095278b 163 ec40176f6895 7ddcb7I 2. Register with the City Clerk's Office by calling 757-385-4303 prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 19,2021. I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS A. FY2021-22 INTERIM FINANCIAL UPDATE 2:30 PM Letitia Shelton, Director—Finance B. STORMWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2:45 PM Toni Utterback, Stormwater Engineering Center Administrator II. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION/INITIATIVES 3:30 PM III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REVIEW 3:45 PM V. INFORMAL SESSION - City Council Chamber- 4:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER—Mayor Robert M. "Bobby" Dyer B. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION G. MAYOR'S PRESENTATIONS 1. RESOLUTIONS IN RECOGNITION a. Reba McClanan b. Dale Snodgrass c. The Kirit Shah Temple Premier League ��G�N A BFAcb 04 `�iv . "i L? V 1 rj r O'OUR NAM\O' e. RESOLUTION WHEREAS: Reba S. McClanan earned a bachelor's degree from Berea College and a master's degree from Virginia Tech;and WHEREAS: Reba taught school for several years before seeing the impact that a committed public servant could make when she was the first woman to run for office in the City of Virginia Beach;and WHEREAS:After being unsuccessful in her first attempt to serve on City Council,Reba built a base of support through civic engagement that led to her being the first woman elected in the City of Virginia Beach representing the former Princess Anne Borough from 1980—1992 and 1996-1998, the Rose Hall District from 1998—2008, as well as served 2 years as the Vice Mayor,a total of 24 years;and WHEREAS: Reba served as Past President of the Virginia Beach Council of Civic Organizations, Virginia Beach Friends of the Library and Friends of the Francis Land House; as chair of both the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission and the Southeastern Planning District Commission; and as a Virginia Beach court docent for 20 years;and WHEREAS: Reba's dedication to the beautification of our City is unsurpassed and her efforts include service as past president of the Virginia Beach Council of Garden Clubs and Virginia Urban Forest Council,founder of the Virginia Beach Clean Community Commission and on the Virginia Beach Beautification Commission;and WHEREAS: On December 9, 2008, the Fragrance Garden at Red Wing Park created in 1972 to provide a public garden for sight-impaired individuals with the plant materials selected for the fragrance of the foliage or blossom was renamed "The Reba S.McClanan Fragrance Garden";and WHEREAS: Reba's dedication and contribution to the community have been recognized through numerous awards including the Virginia Beach Human Rights Award, the Virginia Beach Council of Gardens Award of Distinction, the NAACP Image Award for Community Service, the "Most Valuable Person Award"from the Princess Anne Plaza Civic League and the Toastmasters District 66 Award for Leadership in Public Service; and WHEREAS: Reba was known as "the voice for the underdog"as she was resolute in her convictions that the city could both grow and do it with standards as her ideology was not partisan and was based on the idea of a more engaged and livable community. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: On August 29,2021,Reba passed away leaving a rich living legacy as a champion for maintaining greenspaces and flora as well as her decades of civic leadership and dedication that is duly recognized and applauded;and NOW THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby honors the memory of Reba S.McClanan and extends condolences to her family,friends and loved ones. IN MEMORY OF REBA S. McCLANAN Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia the 19th day of October, 2021 and present this Resolution duly signed by each Member of the Virginia Beach City Council with a copy spread upon the Minutes of this meeting. vkie9.4,1-0,...c.: C--po. .........-e.._, .604.,,,i)-). Council 9Kem6er91lichael(F.Berfuccfi Council 9Kem6erLinwoodO.Branch Council Jfem6erBar6ara 9i1.7f 1411 IAl‘' 14e.t Council her .`�oc�y'7fo1com6 Councit9,lem6erGV5uis Jones u Ro nntafem6eerrJohn(D. oss k -1;17 0--- •........,. jilliek . 14171 Council'&'lem6erAaron gj,Rouse Council Wernher Guy 7G Tower Council lfem6erSa6rina(D.Wooten • VuR 'Y°f rY won 9fayor 4(o6ert . 'Bob 'Dyer GOA•B.P.4c,a`� iiu tc Is'i'9+s S OEM ` ''.ftR NPI,0 1.( Y RESOLUTION WHEREAS: Dale O. "Snort"Snodgrass CAPT USN(Ret) is a native of Lake Ronkonkoma, New York and graduated from the University of Minnesota as an NROTC Midshipman setting records as an All-American swimmer graduating in August 1972 and commissioned an Ensign. He earned his coveted designation of Naval Aviator in December 1973;and WHEREAS: Captain Snodgrass was one of the first fighter pilots to fly the F-14 Tomcat, accumulating more than 4,800 hours in the F-14 in both war and peace,more than any other pilot;and WHEREAS:Captain Snodgrass was selected to attend U.S.Navy Fighter Weapons School(TOPGUN),was the 1985 Fighter Pilot of the Year and the 1986 Grumman Aerospace TOPCAT of the Year;and WHEREAS: Captain Snodgrass made his way to Naval Air Station Oceana in 1975 and his active-duty career included serving as the commanding officer of the Oceana-based VF-33 squadron and Fighter Wing, U.S. Atlantic Fleet;and WHEREAS: Captain Snodgrass earned an array of awards and decorations including Legion of Merit(3),Air Medial(3, 1 with Combat "V'),Meritorious Service Medal(2),Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (3, 1 with Combat "V'),Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Meal,Joint Meritorious Unit Award,Navy Unit Commendation (2), Meritorious Unit Commendation, Navy "E"Ribbon (2), National Defense Service Meal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal(with star), Southwest Asia Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon(3);and WHEREAS: Captain Snodgrass led 34 missions during Desert Storm and landed his F-14 on the carrier more than 1,200 times;and WHEREAS: Captain Snodgrass flew the famous "banana pass"in 1998—a wings-vertical pass close to the carrier USS America,as part of the show for families visiting the ship,which is one of the most famous aviation photos of all time;and WHEREAS: Captain Snodgrass, retiring in 1999, founded DS Airshows, Inc. and co-founded Draken International serving as Chief Pilot,Lead for the Draken Black Diamond Flight Team,Director of Operations for Draken's Adversarial Combat Training and recognized as one of only ten authorized U.S.Air Force Heritage Flight Pilots;and WHEREAS: Captain Snodgrass, was a regular participant in the NAS Oceana Air Show, made the airshow circuit for more than 20 years flying the F-86 Sabre, among many other legendary aircraft,pleasing crowds worldwide with his flying skills and is known as "King of the Airshow circuit in the F-14 Tomcat. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: On July 24, 2021, Captain Snodgrass tragically passed away leaving a legacy of dedication and service to our country that is duly recognized and applauded;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council pauses during its Formal deliberations this 191h day of October 2021, to declare: DALE O. "Snort"SNODGRASS DAY and present this Resolution duly signed by each Member of the Virginia Beach City Council with a copy spread upon the Minutes of this meeting. M' 6/.......-,,. a...�� .. ,.-•,Council-lion 6erWichaefT.Ber1ucc,i Council Yem6er Lin-wood O.Branch Council-Wernher Barbara'11f n� G.. L— CXofrom6 Council*liem6er L uI,Jones ' Council em6erJoh Wass . i"..----3 ... . Council 3t ember Aaron It 2(puse Counnl9tem6erGuy 1C Tower ouncif9Nem6erSabrina(D.Wooten e=zOn Al or . 'Bob'.Dyer sr'' �zAy . '� Q� �'fi '�'�2 *5'73a + �§�� •cam ,_ Gse r _ f �" ro ' Rwofi' RESOLUTION ,? WHEREAS: Cricket is a bat-and-ball game played between two teams of eleven players on a field at the center of which is a 22-yard pitch with a wicket at each end,each comprising two bails balanced on three stumps. This game can be compared with the popular American game of baseball. The batting side scores runs by striking the ball bowled at the wicket with the bat(and running between the wickets), while the bowling and fielding side tries to prevent this(by preventing the ball from leaving the field, and getting the ball to either wicket)and dismiss each batter(so they are out);and WHEREAS: Currently the growing Cricket market in the United States consists of approximately 30- Million fans. The sport is followed primarily in the Indian subcontinent,New Zealand,Australasia,the United Kingdom,southern Africa and the West Indies;and WHEREAS: Hampton Roads Cricket Organization (HRCO) is an amateur cricket club located in Chesapeake operating under the Hindu Temple of Hampton Roads. Under this club, two teams TWCC and TACC participate in Mid-Atlantic Cricket Conference (MACC)as well as other local tournaments in the area;and WHEREAS: Kirit Shah Temple Premier League(TPL) is a professional T20 Cricket league founded by HRCO in 2021. Inspired by world's Biggest T20 Cricket Tournament, the Indian Premier League.HRCO President Sanjay Patel and TPL Founder Jenish Patel brainstormed this idea after Tidewater Cricket Club(TWCC)won the Mid-Atlantic Cricket Conference(MACC) Championship in 2019. The inaugural season has 5 teams participating and supported by more than 20 vendors;and - WHEREAS: The TPL will continue to increase the awareness of the game of Cricket in the Hampton Roads area.The fast-paced tournament matches,with the high-quality level of the players,in each of the 5 teams are aimed to offer an exciting morning or afternoon to the spectators in hopes to market and attract visitors to these games and bring awareness to the game of cricket;and WHEREAS: The future of TPL looks bright with plans to host charity games/tournaments and thereby promote sports activities and community service. The long-term intent of the League is to see that the community at large will be benefited both in terms of financial support for the regional sports chapters, and to provide quality tournaments and entertain the crowd with the exciting game of cricket. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council pause in its deliberations to recognize The Kirit Shah Temple Premier League(TPL)for their efforts to grow the game of Cricket while developing community relationships with the players, fans, sponsors and the community at large. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia the 19th day of October, 2021 and present this Resolution duly signed by each Member of the Virginia Beach City Council with a copy spread upon the Minutes o 's meeting. A. Counci(MemnerMichae(TF.Berlucchi Counci[Mem6er Linwood O.Branch Counci[limber Bar6ara M. enfey Counci(Mem6er N. cy{y'7fofcom6 Con %ember uis`R,Jones Co Mem6erJohn a Mass Council•tem6er Aaron 4j mouse Council'Wernher Guy?LTower Council-Mem6er Sabrina D./Wooten £ f4uue Mayor Rp ry`Wilson Mayor 9�qDyer H. PUBLIC COMMENT I. 2022 PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Proposed 2022 Legislative Agenda Items Amendment to the Virginia Constitution o Constitutional Amendment to Allow General Assembly to Impose Term Limits on Local Governing Bodies Sponsored by Councilmember Rouse The City Council requests the General Assembly begin the process of amending the Virginia Constitution to allow the General Assembly to impose term limits for the City Council of Virginia Beach at the request of the locality. Revisions to Virginia Beach City Charter o Require Special Election for City Council Vacancies Sponsored by Councilmembers Moss, Tower and Rouse The City Council requests its charter be amended to require the City to hold special elections to fill a vacancy occurring among the membership of the Council. (Virginia Beach City Charter §3.03) o Board of Equalization Charter Amendment Sponsored by Councilmembers Tower and Moss The City Council requests its charter be amended to increase the membership of the Board of Equalization from three members to four members. (Virginia Beach City Charter§8.07) Amendments to the Code of Virginia o Short Term Rental—Tax Information Sharing Sponsored by Councilmembers Jones and Tower The City Council requests the Code of Virginia be amended to allow the Commissioner of the Revenue, the Treasurer, or other local tax officials to share information collected through audits with the Planning Department and the City Council to assist in the identification of unregistered short term rentals. (Va. Code §15.2-983) o Align Housing Related FOIA Exclusions with Zoning Exclusions Sponsored by Councilmember Tower The City Council requests the Code of Virginia be amended to allow governments to withhold contact information for people who register nuisance complaints or City Code violations. This withholding exclusion is currently granted in law for State Building Code or Fire Prevention Code complaints,but not for complaints handled by Housing&Neighborhood Preservation. (Va. Code §2.2-3705.3) o Increase the Maximum Civil Penalty for Zoning Ordinance Violations Sponsored by Councilmember Tower The City Council requests the Code of Virginia be amended to increase the civil penalty that may be assessed by a local government's zoning administrator for violations of the City's Zoning Ordinance. (Va. Code §15.2-2209) o Increase Cap on Civil Case Filing Fee to Support Public Law Libraries Sponsored by Councilmember Tower The City Council requests the Code of Virginia be amended to raise the$4 cap to$7 for civil filing fee assessments. These funds are designated for the support of public law libraries. Raising the cap will allow localities to increase the assessment if they so choose, in order to provide better access to law books, computer legal research services and equipment, and related services to citizens. (Va. Code §42.1-70) o Prohibit Public Employees to Hold Public Office Sponsored by Councilmember Rouse The City Council requests the Code of Virginia be amended to allow Virginia Beach to adopt an ordinance that prohibits employees of the locality from holding public office. (Va. Code §15.2- 1512.2) o Virtual Meeting Option for Boards and Commissions Sponsored by Councilmembers Berlucchi and Tower The City Council requests the Code of Virginia be amended to provide appointed advisory boards, councils and commissions of a locality the ability to adopt guidelines allowing the option to hold meetings either entirely or partially by electronic means. (Va. Code §2.2-3708.2) Policy Statements o Full Funding for STEP-VA Sponsored by Councilmembers Berlucchi and Wooten, Mayor Dyer The City Council supports all legislation, budget items and policy changes that will enable or accelerate full funding for all 9 steps of the STEP-VA program for community mental health services throughout the state. o Commonwealth of Virginia Revenue Sharing Program Restoration Sponsored by Councilmember Moss The City Council supports all legislation, budget items and policy changes that will restore this program to its prior status as an immediate aid program and provide the funds necessary to do so in the annual allocation made to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. o Expand Access Broadband Funds and Authorized Uses Sponsored by Vice Mayor Wilson The City Council supports all legislation, budget items and policy changes that enable greater access to federal and state funds designated for broadband projects that benefit Virginia Beach, including utilization to increase affordability for residents. This support specifically calls for the state to impose no greater eligibility requirements on such funds than those imposed by the U.S. Treasury. o African American Cemetery and Graves Fund Sponsored by Councilmember Henley The City Council supports legislation, budget items and policy changes that enable localities to directly apply for funds from the Historical African American Cemeteries and Graves Fund, as long as such application is completely at the discretion of the locality and no obligation or liability is imposed on a locality that does not choose to avail itself to the funds. (Va. Code §10.1-2211.2) o Preservation and Expansion of Tree Canopies Sponsored by Councilmembers Berlucchi, Moss and Henley The City Council supports legislation, budget items and policy changes that provide local governments with greater authority in the reforestation, preservation, and management of urban forests. The Council specifically supports the reenactment of Virginia Acts of Assembly—2021 Special Session I, Chapter 89, An Act to amend and reenact§§15.2-961 and 15.2-961.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to replacement and conservation of trees during development. o General Support to Address Vulnerable Populations Sponsored by Councilmember Wooten The City Council supports legislation,budget items and policy changes that address homelessness, provide support services for low-income households, and address mental health measures. I. PUBLIC HEARING 1. ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION (ARP) EASEMENT Installment Purchase Agreement for 50.15 +/- acres at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road UBf� s's�� y. Qtsv_ aKa'c . •,....4,, �kv.�n ACQUISITION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia,will hold a public hearing with respect to the execution and delivery of an Installment Purchase Agreement for the acquisition of an agricultural land preservation easement with respect to 50.15 acres of land located at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road, in the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia(GPIN: 2410-27-1930), pursuant to Ordinance No.95-2319,as amended,known as the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance, which establishes an agricultural reserve program for the southern portion of the City designated to (a) promote and encourage the preservation of farmland, (b)preserve open spaces and the area's rural character, (c)conserve and protect environmentally sensitive resources, (d) reduce and defer the need for major infrastructure improvements and the expenditure of public funds for such improvements,and (e)assist in shaping the character, direction and timing of community development. Such easement will be purchased pursuant to an Installment Purchase Agreement for an estimated maximum purchase price of $561,680. The City's obligation to pay the purchase price under the Installment Purchase Agreement is a general obligation of the City,and the full faith and credit and the unlimited taxing power of the City will be irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the purchase price and the interest on the unpaid principal balance of the purchase price as and when the same respectively become due and payable.The public hearing,which may be continued or adjourned,will be held by the City Council on October 19.2021,at 6:00 pm.,in the City Council Chamber located on the 2nd floor of the City Hall Building, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Any person interested in this matter may appear and be heard. If you wish to make comments virtually during the public hearing,please follow the two-step process provided below: 1. Register for the WebEx at .- /vbgov/Q nstagele.onc?M T lD=e 736095278 5163ec40176f88957ddcb71 2. Register with the City Clerk's Office by calling 757-385-303 prior to 5:00 p.m.on October 19,2021. If you are physically disabled or visually Impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 385-4303; Hearing Impaired, call 1-800-828-1120 (Virginia Relay - Telephone Device for the Deaf). All interested parties are invited to participate. Amanda Barnes City Clerk BEACON: 10/3/21 and 10/10/21 VI. FORMAL SESSION - City Council Chamber- 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER—Mayor Robert M. "Bobby" Dyer B. INVOCATION: Pastor Tim Dryden New Covenant Presbyterian Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. SPECIAL SESSION September 28, 2021 2. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS October 5, 2021 3 J. FORMAL SESSION AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA K. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTION 1. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE: a. Acquisition of an Agricultural Land Preservation(ARP) easement from Bonnie Woodhouse Crane (50.15 +/- acres) b. Issuance by the City of its contract obligation in the maximum principal amount of $561,680 c. TRANSFER fund to purchase U.S. Treasury Strips 2. Resolution to RATIFY Amendments to the Bylaws re Community Services Board (CSB) 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple and acquisition of temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation re Sandbridge Road—Nimmo Parkway Phase VII-A Project, CIP 100356 4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation re Thalia Creek Greenway Phase 3 Project, CIP 100415 5. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into a portion of City-Owned Property known as Treasure Canal located at the rear of 2224 Windward Shore Drive re construct and maintain rip rap,boat lift,aluminum ramp,two wood piers and a floating wood dock 6. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $1,256,276 from the State Compensation Board to the Sheriff's FY 2021-22 Operating budget re$3,000 bonuses to Deputies 7. Ordinance to ACCEPT $136,429,703 from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds and APPROPRIATE $82,063,098 re Stormwater, Parks and Recreation Infrastructure, and Facilities Capital Projects 6° .7 :et' tw : CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance Authorizing 1) the Acquisition of an Agricultural Land Preservation Easement from Bonnie Woodhouse Crane (50.15+/- Acres), 2) the Issuance by the City of its Contract Obligations in the Maximum Principal Amount of $561,680, and 3) Transfer of Funds to Purchase U.S. Treasury STRIPS PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 19, 2021 MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 • Background: In May 1995, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance") was adopted by the City Council for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the preservation of farmland in the rural southern portion of the City. Under the Agricultural Reserve Program established by the Ordinance, the City purchases the development rights of eligible parcels of land, leaving the fee simple ownership of the land unchanged. These purchases are embodied by perpetual agricultural land preservation easements pursuant to which only agricultural uses, as defined in the Ordinance, are allowed on the land. The subject property has been appraised by an independent appraiser retained by the City. The appraiser has determined the fair market value of the property, based upon ten (10) comparable sales. From the fair market value, the value of the development rights has been determined by subtracting $1,800 per acre, which has previously been established as the farm value (i.e., value of the land restricted to agricultural uses) for land throughout the southern rural area of the City. The resulting amount is the value of the development rights of the property. All offers by the City to purchase the development rights of property are expressly made contingent upon the absence of any title defects or other conditions which, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may adversely affect the City' s interests, and other standard contingencies. • Considerations: The subject property, which consists of one (1) parcel of land having approximately 50.15 acres outside of marshland and swampland, is owned by Bonnie Woodhouse Crane. The parcel is located at 1808 Nanneys Creek Road (GPIN: 2410-27-1930) and is shown on the attached Location Map. Under current development regulations, there is a total development potential of five (5) single-family dwelling building sites, of which zero (0) building sites have been reserved for future development. The proposed purchase price, as stated in the ordinance, is $561,680. This price is the equivalent of approximately $11,200 per acre. The terms of the proposed acquisition are that the City would pay only interest for a period of 25 years, with the principal amount being due and payable 25 years from the date of closing. The interest rate to be paid by the City will be the greater of 1.442% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund its principal obligation under the Installment Purchase Agreement, not to exceed 3.442% without the further approval of the City Council. The City has matching funds available for a portion of this purchase through the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("VDACS"), pursuant to an agreement between the City and VDACS, authorized by this Council on February 18, 2020 (RES-04011). The ordinance authorizes the transfer of the amount needed to purchase the U.S. Treasury STRIPS from the Agriculture Reserve Program Special Revenue Fund to the General Debt Fund. The proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the development rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance. • Public Information: Notice of Public Hearing has been advertised by publication in a newspaper having general circulation in the City once per week for two successive weeks (October 3, 2021 and October 10, 2021). The Public Hearing will be held on October 19, 2021. Public notice will be provided via the normal City Council agenda process. • Alternatives: The City Council may decline to purchase the development rights to the property. • Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance and acquisition of the development rights, assuming all contingencies are met. • Attachments: Ordinance Summary of Terms of Installment Purchase Agreement Location Map Disclosure Statement Form Recommended Action: Adoption n Submitting Department/Agency: Agriculture Department v City Manager: v e(7.31_ 1 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING 1) THE ACQUISITION 2 OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION 3 EASEMENT FROM BONNIE WOODHOUSE CRANE 4 (50.15+/-ACRES), 2) THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF 5 ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS IN THE MAXIMUM 6 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $561,680, AND 3)TRANSFER 7 OF FUNDS TO PURCHASE U.S. TREASURY STRIPS 8 9 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the 10 "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, there has been 11 presented to the City Council a request for approval of an Installment Purchase Agreement 12 (the form and standard provisions of which have been previously approved by the City 13 Council, a summary of terms of which is hereto attached, and a copy of which is on file in 14 the City Attorney's Office)for the acquisition of the Development Rights (as defined in the 15 Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in the City and more fully 16 described in Exhibit B of the Installment Purchase Agreement for a purchase price of 17 $561,680; and 18 19 WHEREAS, the aforesaid Development Rights shall be acquired through the 20 acquisition of a perpetual agricultural land preservation easement, as defined in, and in 21 compliance with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and 22 23 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms and conditions of the 24 purchase as evidenced by the Installment Purchase Agreement. 25 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 27 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 28 29 1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed terms and 30 conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase 31 Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable 32 and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee 33 is hereby authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and delivery of the 34 Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of interest to accrue on the unpaid principal 35 balance of the purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 1.442% per annum or 36 the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on United States Treasury STRIPS 37 purchased by the City to fund such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such 38 rate of interest shall not exceed 3.442% unless the approval of the City Council by 39 resolution duly adopted is first obtained. 40 41 2. The City Council hereby further determines that funding is available for the 42 acquisition of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on 43 the terms and conditions set forth therein. 44 45 3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the Installment Purchase 46 Agreement and, subject to the determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects 47 in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon which may, in the 48 opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City 49 Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment Purchase Agreement in 50 substantially the same form and substance as approved hereby with such minor 51 modifications, insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially alter the 52 purchase price or manner of payment, as the City Manager or his designee shall approve. 53 The City Council further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City to, and attest 54 same on,the Installment Purchase Agreement. The City Council expressly authorizes the 55 incurrence of the indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the Installment 56 Purchase Agreement. 57 58 4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the indebtedness under the Charter of 59 the City rather than pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby constitutes the 60 indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing the full faith and credit of the City. 61 62 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the transfer of $328,639.63 from the 63 Agricultural Reserve Program Special Revenue Fund to the General Debt Fund, and the 64 City Manager is empowered to transfer sufficient additional funds or return funds not 65 required from the Agricultural Reserve Program Special Revenue Fund notwithstanding the 66 dollar limits provided by the Annual Appropriation Ordinance,to purchase the United States 67 Treasury STRIPS as described in the Installment Purchase Agreement. 68 69 Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the City Council. 70 71 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of 72 , 2021. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /of i 2'.---- Agriculture Department Budget and Management Services CE TIFIED AS AVAILABILITY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: OF UND . / , aLl,....___1.-.jik) U. Director of Finance City t me s Office CA15412 \\vbgov.com\dfs1\applications\citylaw\cycom324pdocs\d0011p035\00755186.doc R-1 October 6, 2021 2 AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 2020-161 SUMMARY OF TERMS SELLER: Bonnie Woodhouse Crane PROPERTY LOCATION: 1808 Nanneys Creek Road GPIN: 2410-27-1930 PURCHASE PRICE: $561,680 EASEMENT AREA: 50.15 acres,more or less DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: 5 single-family dwelling sites(0 reserved by Seller) DURATION: Perpetual INTEREST RATE: Equal to yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS acquired by City to fund purchase price,but not less than 1.442%(actual rate to be determined when STRIPS are purchased prior to execution of Installment Purchase Agreement("WA")). Rate may not exceed 3.442%without approval of City Council. TERMS: Interest only,twice per year for 25 years,with payment of principal due 25 years from IPA date. RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: IPA ownership may not be transferred(except for Estate Settlement Transfer)for one(1)year following execution and delivery of the IPA. •.,_ r ., . . • : -..- - --,----.T. __.....14,-,.-„,: , , -- .t.- , I .„,,,,„ - - --#, '- .# i _ # %.._ ....,, _ L...... - irftir 4 ..- ,. 1 _ s' ,- - ' •- tirs IC• • MI - i - 4aWt*I P vaiiiit4p...42 ,. . _.... ,.. ... 4 * *A 44f 1 4f t i i i i .., _.,611,-, ! a.., t 'it 4 4 4) .*21 , ( . . A • - ' ..,_ ••••••-,.., lid ... A.. 6... . -^ • • e • 4 • 4 - • If i L *: * . as ' 1 . ,,, * ' , Vi -*P.;* -i- f --..._...k..._ iir 1 1 t....- -.-.- ci_ tAi• ,'. ,T.., r . • , li A . #—4____ 4. ., • _ __.„,..- . -I. " • , i 4# I '• , , ,.... - - - - i , .. "..IIC : 1 II----ad!' --—./.. • ' ts" . es. AI' '.41 ---..—ds.zdt,a___.lis - L — ... --. -- '.- - , - r 4!•1",,--•,-- :-. 'C4:4 t-- II ..: ' a 1--- '•i --- •--; ' .- , _ ,- -- „Ylirrit, .14,1! '1 - 4 i • ,' 't.; 1 . c . , - a. . - ;... " • i 3.1 - - - "i • - att. 7 . _. i• '. 7 114, .ill • r--TT--t- 4)ti. • 3,_ .i% ;1-,.-*,...•4. •.' loollerpA ': • ,4- *; :# '` zi,...,.. . ..t" .'- ...., r; -.... ;‘f 7 ',4.. ' •;'..i".--. • . T-"-. •', - 0 •: .- -- .. ' : : • - '• - 4 ' •-*4 tlit 4. - . • •! - t 1' ;s ,...- °- -. • • ' --'' ` ,, . ."ei ea ,s-7)...7,1/4 •,--_-_.'— • • — , i- • • 1 . ---‘` ' .. --4 s ":r"--''' -• . ...'-'7'''' s... -• •:.i.e. . Pr.,.if eL,'- •. ',' - - : • ''' -4t.' - -- - 4•-•0 '7----- - -' ' . • . ' - ' : . ' ..i.zi_117N-t.-, - ' c t - - ' ' -;irlli*-''''..., . ' I't i lit --.......„,„„.._ , . ..- se.-',..•••• r.,. • .., •. r.: `IP - ''''% „.... ,-, ...r.„g 4,,, 0 >. CU ,p, A, "CI s- i r ,k• „, . - ...: - • - _ .... c... co c.,) .e 1 --... , . a • ..• ..' ir ., .. ...•„.„.r...,t; - INi Z •-V + ;• -'-' .-.-.-.', - - -. CD in . CO -_- . "7"A'•.4`:.:/,'":',-i,,,.. 0 1,.. v-I:-.•-- , . . - - - . ,. ii....,. . ,,i ,:... i_ah,•:•le A,. 4 #. • - 14111*4 Op 0 ...... - . . A - - ,. ;• , ..., _ 7 4,,i1104.1. . A ----. ...- ..!__.. _., .,:-- __,ji.7,_.--:.•T.,.,4(., . -4.--14-044__ I.-44- , - . • .0.4. .%...-4, .- - _ gr,_. . 4, , ,• ri.„...;......, --...i• 4.,,...43., 14,-2 r , _ .... __ ... , ,11„-,..c • .... n.r . ,. ;•-• -1'.' -;-4.7,- 4 -..-• c ltatk ... ., • - . i- -. •? ...z., - _ • ., .- -.. ..r .., .... .'- ' •• i • • _•. . '',".,.,„„' .,1 ,101,,,..,,,,k. .461„,., .....'_ ,,,:- . ' *....„,— L....,-,.....—- —011101*• .: -,..-- '.11,,,Ic 'IN - ':,,..1 ' - '. • -...— - • --- ' -,-'-.7.1.- - I . .. ... . _, ...„..„......_,........._ . .. _ Disclosure Statement City afVirginia ^..,.�r...�......, Planning & Community ,..• ""- - ---_�,.,_,_.,.._ Development low The disclosures contained in this form are necessary to inform public officials who may vote on the application as to whether they have a conflict of interest under Virginia law. The completion and submission of this form is required for all applications that pertain to City real estate matters or to the development and/or use of property in the City of Virginia Beach requiring action by the City Council or a City board, commission or other body. Applicant Disclosure Applicant Name Bonnie W. Crane Does the applicant have a representative? 0 Yes I No • If yes, list the name of the representative. Is the applicant a corporation,partnership,firm,business,trust or an unincorporated business? ❑ Yes IN No • If yes, list the names of all officers,directors, members,trustees,etc. below. (Attach a list if necessary) • If yes, list the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entity'relationship with the applicant. (Attach a list if necessary) 1"Parent-subsidiary relationship" means"a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,VA. Code§2.2-3101. 2"Affiliated business entity relationship" means"a relationship, other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or(iii)there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities,resources or personnel on a regular basis;or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code§2.2-3101. Revised 11.09.2020 1 I P a 2 e Disclosure Statement City of Virginia Beach Olt Planning & Community Development Known Interest by Public Official or Employee Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? ❑ Yes ® No • If yes,what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Applicant Services Disclosure 1. Does the applicant have any existing financing(mortgage,deeds of trust,cross-collateralization,etc)or are they considering any financing in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? ■ Yes ❑ No • If yes, identify the financial institutions providing the service. SunTrust now Truist 2. Does the applicant have a real estate broker/agent/realtor for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property? ❑ Yes ■ No • If yes,identify the company and individual providing the service. 3. Does the applicant have services for accounting and/or preparation of tax returns provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? ❑ Yes • No • If yes, identify the firm and individual providing the service. 4. Does the applicant have services from an architect/landscape architect/land planner provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? ❑ Yes • No • If yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. 5. Is there any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property? ❑ Yes • No • If yes,identify the purchaser and purchaser's service providers. Revised 11_09_2(vn 2 I P a e e Disclosure Statement Mi3 III City of Vtiyinia Bead Planning & Community =-- Development 6. Does the applicant have a construction contractor in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? 0 Yes ® No • If yes,identify the company and individual providing the service. 7. Does the applicant have an engineer/surveyor/agent in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? 0 Yes ® No • If yes, identify the firm and individual providing the service. 8. Is the applicant receiving legal services in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? ❑ Yes a No • If yes, identify the firm and individual providing the service. Applicant Signature I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission,City Council,VBDA,CBPA,Wetlands Board or any public body or committee in connection with this application. (.. 4C7-11.,,vw-t t".1/4) ej"../#"4"---- Applicant Signature Bonnie W.Crane,Owner Prin ame and Title a n n t ..2, a—ra v1 e, (.) ai ne,r Date j p/i /a,, Is the applicant also the owner of the subject property? Yes ' No • If yes,you do not need to fill out the owner disclosure statement. FOR CITY USE ONLY/All disclosures must be updated two(2)weeks prior to any Planning Commission and City Council meeting that pertains to the applications 0 No changes as of Date Signature Print Name Revised 11.09.2020 3 I P a P e / NU' rS " yL f � 4 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A Resolution to Ratify Amendments to the Bylaws of the Community Services Board MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 • Background: The Community Services Board recently completed a review of its bylaws, and during its September 30, 2021 meeting, the Board approved the attached amendments. • Considerations: The bylaws provide that amendments must be reviewed and ratified by the City Council. This resolution ratifies the recent amendments, as set forth in the attached revised bylaws in which the new text is underlined and in red font. • Public Information: Public information will be provided through the normal Council agenda process. • Attachments: Resolution and Revised Bylaws (Exhibit A) Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Human Services9V55. City Manager: 1 A RESOLUTION TO RATIFY RECENT AMENDMENTS TO 2 THE BYLAWS OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD 3 4 WHEREAS, the Community Services Board recently completed a review of its 5 bylaws; 6 7 WHEREAS, after considering the proposed changes, during its September 8 30,2021 meeting, the Board approved several amendments to its bylaws; 9 10 WHEREAS, the Board's bylaws provide that amendments to the bylaws must be 11 reviewed and ratified by the City Council; and 12 13 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommended amendments to the 14 bylaws of the Community Services Board and finds them to be acceptable. 15 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 17 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 19 That the City Council hereby ratifies the amendments to the bylaws of the 20 Community Services Board, as approved by the Board, and attached hereto as Exhibit 21 "A". Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the , day of , 2021. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: y i,(c Department of Human Services City Attorney's Office CA15553 R-2 October 7, 2021 Adopted September 6, 2016 Revised:September 30, 2021 EXHIBIT A B Y- L A WS Virginia Beach Community Services Board ARTICLE I - NAME The name of this Board shall be the Virginia Beach Community Services Board, hereinafter referred to as the"Board." ARTICLE II -PROSE The purpose of this Board shall be to act as an administrative policy community services board and as the agent of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in the establishment and operation of community mental health, developmental, and substance abuse services as provided for in Title 37.2 of the Code ofVirqinia. The Board shall serve as the single point of entry into publicly funded mental health, developmental, and substance abuse services in Virginia Beach. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP AND TRAINING Section 1. The membership of the Board shall consist of no less than six and no more than eighteen members appointed by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the "City Council." Prior to making appointments, City Council will disclose the names of those persons being considered for appointment. The membership will be as broadly representative of the community. One-third of the appointments to the Board shall be individuals who are receiving or who have received services or family members of individuals who are receiving or who have received services, at least one of whom shall be an individual receiving services. No employee of the Board or employee or board member of an organization that receives funding from any community services board may be appointed a member of the Board. Members will be appointed in accordance with Virginia Code § 37.2-501. Section 2. The term of membership will be for three years from January 1 of the year of appointment. No person will be eligible to serve more than three full terms; however, a person first appointed to fill an unexpired term may serve three additional full three-year terms. However, after a one-year period has elapsed since the end of the member's last three-year term, the City Council may reappoint that member. Section 3. Board member vacancies will be filled for unexpired terms in the same manner as original appointments. Section 4. Any Board member may be removed by City Council for cause after being given a written statement of the causes and an opportunity to be heard thereon. Section 5. Board members will receive training on their legal, fiduciary, regulatory, policy, and programmatic powers and responsibilities and an overview of the Performance Contract within one month of their appointment. Upon request, new board members will be assigned to an 1 Adopted September 6, 2016 Revised:September 30, 2021 experienced board member to serve as a mentor. ARTICLE IV - POWERS AND DUTIES The Board, as an administrative policy board and agent, of the City of Virginia Beach, shall be subject to the laws and regulations relating to City agencies and shall have the general powers, duties and responsibilities of a Board as outlined in Virginia Code § 37.2-504. 1. Review and evaluate public and private community mental health, developmental, and substance abuse services and facilities that receive funds from it and advise the City Council as to its findings. 2. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 37.2-508, submit to the City Council a performance contract for community mental health, developmental, and substance abuse services for its approval prior to submission of the contract to the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (hereinafter referred to as the "DBHDS"). 3. Within amounts appropriated for this purpose, provide mental health, substance abuse and developmental services authorized under the performance contract. 4. In accordance with its approved performance contract, enter into contracts with other providers for the delivery of services or operations of facilities. 5. Make policies or regulations concerning the delivery of services and operation of facilities under its direction or supervision, subject to applicable policies and regulations adopted by the Board. 6. Participate with the City in the appointment and annual performance evaluation of an executive director of community mental health, developmental, and substance abuse services who meets the minimum qualifications established by the DBHDS, and prescribe the director's duties. The compensation of the executive director shall be fixed by the City Council in consultation with the Board within the amounts made available by appropriation for this purpose. 7. Prescribe a reasonable schedule of fees for services provided by personnel or facilities under the jurisdiction or supervision of the Board and establish procedures for the collection of those fees. All fees collected shall be included in the performance contract submitted to the City Council and shall be used only for community mental health, developmental, and substance abuse services purposes. The Board shall institute a reimbursement system to maximize the collection of fees from individuals receiving services under its jurisdiction or supervision, consistent with the provisions of Virginia Code § 37.2-511, and from responsible third party payors. The Board shall not attempt to bill or collect fees for time spent participating in commitment hearings for involuntary admissions pursuant to Article 5 (Section 37.2-814 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of the Code of Virginia. 2 Adopted September 6, 2016 Revised:September 30, 2021 8. Accept or refuse gifts, donations, bequests, or grants of money or property from any source as allowed by City Policy and as authorized by the City Council. 9. Seek and accept funds through federal grants. In accepting federal grants, the Board shall not bind the City Council to any expenditures or conditions of acceptance without the prior approval of the City Council. 10. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, disburse funds appropriated to it in accordance with such regulations as may be established by the City Council. 11.Apply for and accept loans as authorized by the City Council. 12. Develop joint written agreements, consistent with adopted by the Board, with local school divisions; health departments; boards of social services; housing agencies, where they exist; courts, sheriffs; area agencies on aging; and regional offices of the Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services. The agreements shall specify the services to be provided to individuals. All participating agencies shall develop and implement the agreements and shall review the agreements annually. 13. Develop and submit to the DBHDS the necessary information for the preparation of the Comprehensive State Plan for Behavioral Health and Developmental Services pursuant to Virginia Code § 37.2-315. 14.Take all necessary and appropriate actions to maximize the involvement and participation of individuals receiving services and family members of individuals receiving services in policy formulation and services planning, delivery, and evaluation. 15. Institute, singly or in combination with other community services boards or behavioral health authorities, a dispute resolution mechanism that is approved by the DBHDS and enables individuals receiving services and family members of individuals receiving services to resolve concerns, issues, or disagreements about services without adversely affecting their access to or receipt of appropriate types and amounts of current or future services from the Board. 16. Notwithstanding the provisions of Virginia Code § 37.2-400 or any regulations adopted thereunder, release data and information about each individual receiving services to the DBHDS so long as the DBHDS implements procedures to protect the confidentiality of that data and information. 17. Carry out other duties and responsibilities as assigned by the City Council. 18. Comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to the 3 Adopted September 6, 2016 Revised: September 30, 2021 Virginia Freedom of Information Act and the Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. ARTICLE V- APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PERFORMANCE CONTRACT FOR MENTAL HEALTH, DEVELOPMENTAL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES Pursuant to Virginia Code § 37.2-508, the Board may apply for State assistance by submitting annually to the DBHDS the City's proposed performance contract for the next fiscal year once the performance contract has been (1) approved by the Board and (2) approved by a vote of the City Council. The Board shall make the proposed performance contract available for public review and solicit public comment for a period of 30 days prior to the Board's approval and subsequent submission to the City Council for approval. ARTICLE VI - OFFICERS OF THE BOARD AND THEIR DUTIES Section 1. The officers of the Board shall consist of a Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary. Section 2. The duties of the Chair shall be: (a) To preside at all meetings of the full Board and Executive Committee. (b) To establish ad hoc committees and appoint members and name chairs to all committees (excluding the Nominating Committee), as deemed necessary for the operation of the Board. (c) To work closely with the Executive Director of the Community Services Board and the City Manager. (d) To perform any other duties determined by the Board in furtherance of Community Services. (e) To ensure that all federal, state and local governments are informed as to the activities of the Board as requested and appropriate. (f) To collaborate with the Executive Director or his/her staff to ensure all meeting minutes are disseminated to Board members and there is Board compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. (g) To be responsible for the integrity of the Board's process and make decisions about Board process and delegation as provided by these By-Laws. (h) To be responsible for implementation of City Code § 2-3.1(a) of the City of Virginia Beach as it relates to Board member attendance requirements. (i) To serve as ex-officio member of all committees, except the Executive Committee and the Nominating Committee. The Chair shall have no authority over the committees in which the Chair is attending as an ex officio member. 4 Adopted September 6, 2016 Revised:September 30, 2021 Section 3. The Vice-Chair shall, in the absence of the Chair, perform the duties of the Chair and any other duties assigned by the Board orthe Chair. Section 4. The duties of the Secretary shall be: (a) To ensure the accuracy, integrity and maintenance of Board documents including records of all meetings of the Board and Executive Committee and a copy of the Board's By-laws, policy manual, and new Board member orientation notebook. (b) To (1) ensure that any closed meeting is held in accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, including the requirements for a motion that (i) identifies the subject matter, (ii) states the purpose of the meeting, and (iii) makes specific reference to the applicable exemption from open meeting requirements provided in Virginia Code §§ 2.2-3707 or - 3711(A); and (2) ensure that at the conclusion of any closed meeting, the Board immediately reconvenes in an open meeting and takes a roll call or other recorded vote to be included in the Board's minutes certifying that to the best of each Board member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Act and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered during the closed meeting. (c) To perform duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair and the Vice-Chair. ARTICLE VII - OFFICER NOMINATIONS. ELECTIONS. TERMS OF OFFICE. VACANCIES AND REMOVAL Section 1. A Nominating Committee in accordance with Article IX, Section 2, shall recommend a slate of officers at the Board's meeting one month prior to its election month. Other nominations shall be accepted from any Board member at the time the slate is presented. Section 2. The Board shall elect its officers at the November or December Board meeting, whichever month is the Board's last meeting of the calendar year. A quorum must be present for voting and a vote of two-thirds of members present is required to elect an officer. Section 3. The term of office shall be for one year commencing on the first day of the calendar year or until a successor is elected. No officer may serve more than three consecutive terms in the same office The Board may suspend this provision of the by- laws and extend an officer's term upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members to take this action. Section 4. Any vacancy occurring in the officers of the Board, regardless of the cause, shall be filled by the Board within 60 days of the vacancy. A quorum must be present for voting and a vote of two-thirds of members present is required. Duration of such appointments shall be limited to the unexpired term of office. Section 5. Officers shall serve at the pleasure of the Board and may be removed after prior notice by a vote of two-thirds of members present at any regular meeting of the Board. An officer may resign at any time by giving written notice to the Board or the Board 5 Adopted September 6, 2016 Revised: September 30, 2021 Chair. Any such resignation shall take effect on the date of the receipt of such notice or at any later time as specified in the note. ARTICLE VIII -MEETINGS AND ATTENDANCE Section 1. The Board shall adopt an annual meeting schedule that reflects, at a minimum, the frequency of meetings required by the Performance Contract. Board meetings shall be held at a time and place determined by the Board and pursuant to the requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The Board may vote to cancel a scheduled meeting, or the Board's Chair, in consultation with the Executive Director or designee, may cancel a scheduled meeting. Public notice will be given of the cancellation of any Board meeting. Section 2. Special meetings of the Board may be called by the Chair or upon written request of three members. Section 3. The quorum for all Board meetings shall be the majority of the total appointed Board members. Section 4. As required by City Code § 2-3.1, no Board member shall accumulate an annual total of more than three absences or be absent from more than one-fourth of the total number of meetings held within a given calendar year, for reasons other than personal illness, the illness or death of a relative, or other circumstances beyond the member's control. Additionally, if a member knows in advance that he or she is unable to attend a meeting for any reason, the member should promptly inform the Chair or the appropriate City staff member, so the Chair can determine in advance if a quorum will be present. Section 5. As permitted by Virginia Code § 2.2-3708.2 or its successor provision, and as adopted in CSB Policy for Remote Participation by Members in CSB Meetings, allow CSB members to join meetings from a remote location within the stipulated parameters. ARTICLE IX-COMMITTEES Section 1. There shall be a standing Executive Committee composed of the Board's three officers. In addition, the Board's chair, in accordance with Article VI, Section 2-6 b, may appoint to the Executive Committee an at-large member providing the Board is notified of the appointment. The duties of the Executive Committee include but are not limited to the following: (a) Establish Board agenda; (b) Act on the Board's behalf when directed to do so by the Board; (c) Provide meeting notes and any recommendations of the Committee to the Board; (d) Prepare in collaboration with staff and with review and approval by Board members, Board policies that comply with the Performance Contract; (e) Plan for and participate in the orientation of new Board members; and 6 Adopted September 6, 2016 Revised:September 30, 2021 (f) Identify, in collaboration with staff, Board member educational and training topics. Section 2. A Nominating Committee shall be constituted annually for the purpose of nominating a slate of officers. The Committee shall consist of at least three members and shall be appointed by a vote of the Board two months prior to the Board's annual election of officers. The Committee's slate of officers shall be presented to the Board one month prior to the Board's annual election of officers. Section 3. The Board's chair in accordance with Article VI, Section 2-6, may appoint ad hoc Board committees and prescribe the term, powers, and duties of ad hoc committees as may be necessary or useful in the conduct of the business of the Board. The Chair of an ad hoc committee shall be responsible for providing to the Board notes from committee meetings and ensuring compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Ad hoc committees should report back to the full Board. ARTICLE X - OPERATING PROCEDURES The Board, in carrying out its powers and duties in accordance with Article IV of these By- Laws, shall utilize the following operating procedures: (a) All employees of directly operated programs shall be subject to the personnel policies and procedures of the City of Virginia Beach. Additionally, the Board hereby adopts the City of Virginia Beach's grievance procedure. (b) Pursuant to Virginia Code § 37.2 — 501, legal services to the Board shall be provided by the City Attorney's Office. (c) The City Treasurer shall receive those funds designated to the Board. (d) The City of Virginia Beach Director of Finance shall serve as the Board's fiscal agent. The City of Virginia Beach shall receive an independent annual audit of the total revenues and expenditures of the Board, a copy of which shall be provided to the DBHDS. (e) The Board shall comply with the City of Virginia Beach policies and procedures for purchasing equipment and supplies. (f) The Board may, following review by the City of Virginia Beach Director of Finance as to availability of funds and the City Attorney as to appropriate legal form, enter into such agreements and contracts as are necessary to carry out its approved programs. (g) The Board may revise its budget categories to meet program needs as provided in the budget ordinances of the City of Virginia Beach. When a budget revision is necessary, the Board Executive Director shall submit the request in writing to the City Finance Department prior to Board consideration of the proposed change. The Finance Department will review the request for conformance to the City's fiscal rules, regulations and budget ordinances and will notify the Executive Director that the request is in compliance with these rules and regulations or, if 7 Adopted September 6, 2016 Revised: September 30, 2021 not, why not and what procedures need to be followed to achieve compliance. (h) The Board shall be authorized to allocate all agency revenues in accordance with DBHDS guidelines and in compliance with the policies of the City of Virginia Beach. ARTICLE XI - ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall govern the conduct of all Board proceedings unless inconsistent with these By-Laws, in which case these By-Laws shall govern. ARTICLE XII - PREVAILING AUTHORITY In the event of any conflict between any provision of these by-laws and any provision of state lay of City ordinance, the provision of state law or the City ordinance (in that order of precedence) shall supersede such by-laws provisions. Additionally, if any Virginia Code or City Code section cited herein is amended subsequent to the approval of these by-laws, references to those code sections shall be interpreted to be references to the most recently amended version of those code sections. ARTICLE XIII — BY- LAWS The By-Laws may be amended at any regular meeting of the Board by two-thirds vote of the membership, notice having been submitted to each Board member in writing two weeks prior to the meeting. Such amendments shall then be reviewed and ratified by the City Council. 8 4:(C---'4,, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to authorize acquisition of property in fee simple for the Sandbridge Road - Nimmo Parkway Phase VII-A Project, CIP 100356 (formerly CIP 2-078), VDOT UPC 113196, and the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation. PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 5, 2021 MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 • Background: Sandbridge Road is the only public road in and out of the Sandbridge area of Virginia Beach. It is a narrow, low-lying, 2-lane road, with no shoulder. Ditches line the travel lanes, and the road has several curves. Any obstruction to the roadway, such as a disabled vehicle or stormwater ponding, causes traffic to be disrupted for miles, making it difficult for emergency vehicles to access Sandbridge. At times, Sandbridge Road traffic is impaired to such a degree that the City must seek permission from the United States Navy to use the Oceana/Dam Neck Annex roads to allow traffic to move out of Sandbridge. The Sandbridge Road — Nimmo Parkway Phase VII-A Project (the "Project") is for the improvement of a 1.1 mile portion of Sandbridge Road ending at Sandpiper Road. The goal for the Project is to improve both safety and resiliency. The Project will improve safety by replacing the existing Sandbridge Road with a straightened, 2-lane, undivided roadway. The new road will have 8 feet of shoulder (4' pavement and 4' soft shoulder) to provide a recovery area to allow disabled vehicles to pull out of the travel lanes. It will have a shared-use path and on-road bike lanes within a 160-foot-wide right-of-way, to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to travel together, without lane conflicts. The Project includes raising the roadway elevation to account for 3 feet of sea level rise and improvements to the storm drainage system, which together will reduce the number of days Sandbridge Road is obstructed by ponding stormwater. The Project will also install new LED street lighting and new water lines. The Project first appeared in the FY 2014- 15 CIP. • Considerations: The Project will require property and easements from 10 privately owned parcels. No people or businesses will be displaced by the Project. Authority is requested to acquire the necessary property and easements (temporary and permanent) by agreement or condemnation. • Public Information: A Citizen's Information meeting was held on December 10, 2015. A Citizen's Information Meeting for the Nimmo Parkway Corridor was held on September 26, 2018. An advertised public hearing will be held on October 5, 2021 , and public notice will be provided via the normal City Council agenda process. • Alternatives: Deny the Ordinance, which will delay the Project. • Recommendations: Approval. • Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Engineering Q-1 City Manager: i 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE 2 ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN FEE SIMPLE 3 FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE SANDBRIDGE 4 ROAD — NIMMO PARKWAY PHASE VII-A PROJECT, CIP 100356 (formerly CIP 2-078), 6 AND THE ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY 7 AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS, BY 8 AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION 9 10 WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, a ii public necessity exists for the construction of this important roadway project to improve 12 transportation within the City and for other related public purposes for the preservation of 13 the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and for the welfare of the 14 people in the City of Virginia Beach. 15 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 17 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 19 Section 1 . That the City Council authorizes the acquisition by purchase or 20 condemnation pursuant to Sections 15.2-1901 , et seq., Sections 33.2-1007, et seq., and 21 Title 25.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, of all that certain real property in fee 22 simple, including temporary and permanent easements (the "Property"), as shown on the 23 plans entitled "SANDBRIDGE ROAD — NIMMO PARKWAY PHASE VII-A" (the "Project"), 24 and more specifically described on the acquisition plats for the Project (plats and plans 25 collectively referred to as the "Plans"), the Plans being on file in the Engineering Division, 26 Department of Public Works, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. 27 28 Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to make or cause to be made 29 on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, to the extent that funds are available, a reasonable 30 offer to the owners or persons having an interest in said Property. If refused, the City 31 Attorney is hereby authorized to institute, prosecute and settle or resolve proceedings to 32 condemn said Property. 33 34 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 35 , 2021 . CA-15394 PREPARED: 9/7/21 R-1 c:\users\ccva ug ha n\a ppdata\local\m icrosoft\windows\i netcache\co ntent.outloo k\wy5i m m u 7\00742995.d oc APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY IGNATUR;'E CITY ATTORNEY ?IV gca l t 54 DEPARTMENT f " 1 'y 1 r fi t �, L p ri v • 4 - '4 fl lk" F* "zA I • d L P c, .►:' .O, t?' O Q �Q ✓ I- OQ�• 0' ;K < { ai w -. Q Z t r a: O v3 O L co a • 0 • E E z -o co 0 ce ca 4'. n • 1 Y ` .r3 ^ 73 s 1_r C CO cn • w - • cc J 0 w C 0 z z n. a N C < w L. • ' vStA HQ : new _ Q 4, 0 U t _ 2 Z -o 0 0 ui <17- a tX - o- x �c g d 1— o w n.- O 0 w . _ . z J N f C/] c . N \ ti" it `� f6 ^ si 1�J iii CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM J ITEM: An Ordinance to authorize acquisition of temporary and permanent easements for the Thalia Creek Greenway Phase 3 Project, 100415 (formerly CIP 4-079), either by agreement or condemnation. PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 5, 2021 MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 • Background: The Thalia Creek Greenway Phase 3 Project (the "Project") is for the improvement of a 1 ,500 linear foot shared-use path. The Project includes construction of boardwalk and trail facilities starting on Bonney Road at a City-owned parcel and continuing north to South Independence Boulevard. The City has completed earlier phases of the path between Constitution Drive and Bonney Road. The Project, together with earlier phases, is a unique initiative to develop an urban greenway that provides access to natural open space while also providing an alternative transportation route in the Town Center area. The Project first appeared in FY 2012-13 as part of a 3- phase project and has been partially funded with grant money. • Considerations: The Project requires permanent public access easements, temporary construction easements, and the relocation of an existing drainage easement. The proposed easements are primarily situated near Thalia Creek and are in areas that are not developable due to environmental conditions; however, one acquisition will involve a temporary construction easement across an existing parking lot drive aisle. No businesses will be displaced by these acquisitions and care will be exercised to minimize any disruption. Authority is requested to acquire the necessary easements by agreement or condemnation. • Public Information: A portion of funding for the Project came from a TAP grant that required a City Council Resolution of Support, which occurred on October 21, 2014. A Public Notice concerning the Project was advertised on March 17, 2019 and March 24, 2019. One response was received, and City staff met with the individual on May 14, 2019. An advertised public hearing will be held on October 5, 2021, and public notice will be provided via the normal City Council agenda process. • Alternatives: Deny the ordinance, which would delay the Project. • Recommendations: Approval. • Attachments: Ordinance and Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate 19c City Manager: ...,,Z‘ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE 2 ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY AND 3 PERMANENT EASEMENTS FOR THE THALIA 4 CREEK GREENWAY PHASE 3 PROJECT, CIP s 100415 (formerly CIP 4-079), BY AGREEMENT 6 OR CONDEMNATION 7 8 WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, a 9 public necessity exists for the construction of this important public project to extend the 10 Thalia Creek Greenway, a multi-modal public boardwalk and path; to provide safer 11 alternative transportation options within the City; to improve public access to Thalia Creek's 12 natural areas; to improve bikeways and trails connectivity; and for related public purposes 13 for the preservation of the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and for 14 the welfare of the people in the City of Virginia Beach. 15 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 17 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 19 Section 1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition by purchase or 20 condemnation pursuant to Sections 15.2-1901, et sew. and Title 25.1 of the Code of 21 Virginia of 1950, as amended, of all those certain temporary and permanent easements 22 (the"Easements"), as shown on the plans entitled "THALIA CREEK GREENWAY PHASE 23 3" (the "Project"), and more specifically described on the acquisition plats for the Project 24 (plats and plans collectively referred to as the "Plans"), the Plans being on file in the Parks 25 and Recreation Administration Building, 2154 Landstown Rd., City of Virginia Beach, 26 Virginia 23456. 27 28 Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to make or cause to be made 29 on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, to the extent that funds are available, a reasonable 30 offer to the owners or persons having an interest in said Easements. If refused, the City 31 Attorney is hereby authorized to institute, prosecute and settle or resolve proceedings to 32 condemn said Easements. 33 34 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 35 , 2021. CA15384 PREPARED: 9/23/21 R-1 \\vbgov.com\dfs 1\applications\city law\cycom32\wpd ocs\d 014\p039\00733796.doc APPROVED AS TO CONTENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL j. SUFFICIENCY -441 3 SIGNAT, RE CITY TT RNEY CTL— DEPARTMENT / ti5 N W \ 'J' F RC INIA BEAD- LOD I jLL _ .S 2 0 1 Er MI Q r cr ---1 y �ent J NINA DR Z h — FERDINAND CIR CARAPACE DR 1111 i c144* vG��O R�' \/ \ f ------- ,-,-:-,_, OP ;\, : tm \ \ , 0 i 0,z 1 „,,,,,-------- 7-, v \ 43, \ __,.,...‘,I--- / i a \ III ...,)' w �p \ o i ` \ -~— i_. \ Legend ORO Proposed Trail with easements for public LOCATION MAP access and temporary construction THALIA CREEK GREENWAY cam Temporary Construction Easement for 54 PHASE III CIP 4-079 construction access L 1 City Property ��7 Feet 0 100 200 400 Prepared by PW./Eng/Eng Support Services Bureau 09/22/21 X\CADD\Projects\ARC Rles\AGENDA MAPS\Thalia Creek Greenway\ CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM J ITEM: An Ordinance to Authorize Temporary Encroachments into a portion of City- owned property known as Treasure Canal, Located at the rear of 2224 Windward Shore Drive. MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 i Background: Norbert and Evelyn Wilson (the "Applicants") have requested permission to construct and maintain 573 sq. ft. of rip rap, a 12' x 12' boat lift, 4' x 12' aluminum ramp, two wood piers (5' x 31' and 5' x 25'), and 8' x 12' floating wood dock (the "Encroachments") into City-owned property known as Treasure Canal, located at the rear of their property at 2224 Windward Shore Drive (GPIN: 2409-19-3201). a Considerations: City Staff has reviewed the Encroachments and recommends approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the Agreement. There are similar encroachments in Treasure Canal, which is where the Applicants have requested to encroach. ■ Public Information: Public notice will be provided via the normal City Council agenda process. • Alternatives: Deny the Encroachments or add conditions as desired by Council. a Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. it Attachments: Ordinance, Exhibit, Agreement, Pictures, Location Map, and Disclosure Statement Form Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Real Estate 2 ye City Manager: ,_.."/ 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO 5 A PORTION OF CITY-OWNED 6 PROPERTY KNOWN AS TREASURE 7 CANAL, LOCATED AT THE REAR OF 8 2224 WINDWARD SHORE DRIVE 9 10 WHEREAS, Norbert Wilson and Evelyn Wilson (the "Wilsons") have 11 requested permission to construct and maintain 573 sq. ft. of rip rap, a 12' x 12' boat lift, 4' 12 x 12' aluminum ramp, two wood piers (5' x 31' and 5' x 25'), and 8' x 12' floating wood dock 13 (the "Encroachments")within the City's property known as Treasure Canal, located at the 14 rear of their property at 2224 Windward Shore Drive (GPIN: 2409-19-3201); and 15 16 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2- 17 2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon 18 the City's property subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 19 20 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 21 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 22 23 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2- 24 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, That pursuant to the authority 25 and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, 26 as amended, the Wilsons, their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to 27 construct and maintain the Encroachments within the City's property as shown on the map 28 entitled: "EXHIBIT A ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT SHOWING PROPOSED RIP RAP, 29 BOAT LIFT, ALUMINUM RAMP, WOOD PIER AND FLOATING DOCK FOR NORBERT& 30 EVELYN WILSON LOCATED ON LOT 60, SECTION 1, BAY ISLAND M.B. 45, P. 37, 37A 31 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," having a Scale of 1" = 40', dated January 15, 32 2021, and prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, a copy of which is attached hereto 33 as Exhibit A, and on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made 34 for a more particular description; 35 36 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the Encroachments are expressly subject 37 to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the agreement between the City of 38 Virginia Beach and the Wilsons (the "Agreement"), an unexecuted copy of which has been 39 presented to the Council in its agenda, and will be recorded among the records of the 40 Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach; 41 42 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized 43 designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and 44 45 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until 46 such time as the Wilsons and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the 47 Agreement. 48 49 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 50 day of , 2021. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM: UBLTC WORKS, EAL ESTA ANA H RMEYER SEN1 CITY ATTORN Y CA15212 R-1 Prepared: 08/20/2021 c:userstccvaughantappdataUocahmicrosottlwindowslinetcachetcontent.outlooktwy5jmmu7t00746457.doc TREASURE CANAL SEE SHEET 2 NOTES: NOW OR FORMERLY FOR DETAIL 1. THIS PLAN WAS PERFORMED CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A S 66'55'53° E (PLAT) TITLE REPORT. OVERALL AREA OF 92.31' (PLAT) 2. THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENDED ENCROACHMENT 21.3 75.6' FOR AN ENCROACHMENT _ — �� 7 8' S 694 924(CALC.)LC ) REQUEST ONLY. N 6.6 EDGE OF WATER ao --- ='•' "�'•:`•:-:�•. EXISTING '' I=:' cn TIMBER � 0 v,a BULKHEAD o0 s 0, J -.I C N, PIN(F) a �� rn rn �u'� EXISTING Q SHED SHED NOW OR FORMERLY NORBERT & EVELYN WILSON 2 I.N. 20200630000565440 w LOT 60, SECTION 1 2 NOW OR FORMERLY NOW OR FORMERLY BAY ISLAND 'o BRENTON RODGERS & (-1)).. M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A w ASHLEY NICHOLE OSGOOD JUSTIN WHEELER & GPIN: 2409-19-3201 0 I.N. 20110721000735000 MARCIA WHEELER 0 LOT 61, SECTION 1 I.N. 20120910001031900 So's N�Pc �oN�. m BAY ISLAND LOT 59, SECTION 1 �, o �p� M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A BAY ISLAND N o GPIN: 2409-19-3199 M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A 6, o pR� GPIN: 2409-19-2203 o N1O S&FRPME , � gF\GK 2.24 w_ O #2 %0,ALTH 01 ` a pORGN .: .• f 1r1‘ ON SEEP u DA VPUP% ER q�m1 `I` c.No. 38395 ` PIN(F) � 15'21�44 A06 °.i, 1- tit' PIN(F) R,2QA O g3 pR�vE �SS1ONAL ��G - SNARE 0�,-(0 CLE \NMI° PRE l5° i, 31 P �COMopSS C\R MB 45, P EXHIBIT A ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT SHOWING PROPOSED RIP RAP, BOAT LIFT, ALUMINUM RAMP, WOOD 0 40 80 PIER AND FLOATING WOOD DOCK FOR NORBERT & EVELYN WILSON GALLUP LOCATED ON SURVEYORS &ENGINEERS LOT 60, SECTION 1, BAY ISLAND 323 FIRST COLONIAL ROAD M.B. 45, PG. 37, 37A VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA 23454 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA (757)428-8132(757)425-2390 FAX Scale: 1"=40' I Date: JANUARY 15, 2021 I Sheet: 1 of 2 i W:\Wilson,Bert-2224 Windward Shore Drive\Encroachment Exhibit\20-72 Encroachment dwg,9/20/2021 11:52:25 AM NOTES: 1. ALL FRAMING LUMBER SHALL BE SYP SALT TREATED WITH A MINIMUM RETENTION OF 0.80 LBS. PER CUBIC FOOT. 2. ALL HARDWARE AND FASTENERS SHALL BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED. 3. ALL PIER AND LIFT PILES SHALL BE SYP SALT TREATED WITH A MINIMUM RETENTION OF 2.5 LBS. PER CUBIC FOOT. TREASURE CANAL NOW OR FORMERLY PROPOSED 4'x12' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ALUMINUM RAMP �� M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A PROPOSED J' PROPOSED 5'x25' WOOD PIER 8'x12' FLOATING 'O PROPOSED 12'x12' BOAT LIFT WOOD DOCK ul OVERALL AREA OF 75.6' _ t- - - - 1 - ENCROACHMENT _ — — — EDGEIOF WATER 9 PROPOSED 5'x31' N `a`I�? I WOOD PIER tr..:)) I 00 `fl !We. •ygI j I ►•••,•_• .h •t7 S 66'55'53" E (PLAT) 92.31' (PLAT) Z ��� S 67'24'14" E (CALC.) 94.92' (CALC.) a? �r1•, i�!' PROPOSED VDOT ow �t!•A•i . CLASS 1A RIP-RAP al NOW OR FORMERLY EXISTING (573 S.F.) TIMBER BRENTON RODGERS & m BULKHEAD ASHLEY NICHOLE OSGOOD NOW OR FORMERLY PIN(F) I.N. 20110721000735000 JUSTIN WHEELER & * LOT 61, SECTION 1 MARCIA WHEELER BAY ISLAND I.N. 20120910001031900 M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A LOT 59, SECTION 1 Z o GPIN: 2409-19-3199 �, BAY ISLAND o M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A w .o NOW OR FORMERLY w GPIN: 2409-19-2203 'Pt EXISTING NORBERT & EVELYN WILSON Isi. FRAME I.N. 20200630000565440 o m SHED LOT 60, SECTION 1 BAY ISLAND N M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A ��pLTIIOi w^' GPIN: 2409-19-3201 Lf 'o? 0 20 40 O v DA Ra. UTLER `Ic.No. 38395 EXHIBIT A 5 -21�4'fY ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT SHOWING PROPOSED O.� 1'1 RIP RAP, BOAT LIFT, ALUMINUM RAMP, WOOD -tfzs!`sIONAL „SIN- PIER AND FLOATING WOOD DOCK FOR NORBERT & EVELYN WILSON GALLUP LOCATED ON SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS LOT 60, SECTION 1, BAY ISLAND 323 FIRST COLONIAL ROAD M.B. 45, PG. 37, 37A VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA 23454 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA (757)428-8132(757)425-2390 FAX Scale: 1"=20' I Date: JANUARY 15, 2021 Sheet: 2 of 2 W:\Wilson,Bert-2224 Windward Shore Drive\Encroachment Exhibit\20-72 Encroachment.dwg,9/20/2021 11:52:27 AM PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (BOX 31) EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(C)(4) THIS AGREEMENT, made this Q r!Q day of J v L/ , 2021, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, "City", and NORBERT WILSON and EVELYN WILSON, husband and wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, collectively, "Grantee" even though more than one. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as Lot "60" as shown on that certain plat entitled: "SUBDIVISION OF BAY ISLAND SECTION ONE PRINCESS ANNE CO., VA. LYNNHAVEN MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT", dated February, 1958, having a Scale of 1" = 100', and prepared by Frank D. Tarrall, Jr. and Associates, which said plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 45, at page 37 and 37A, and being further designated, known, and described as 2224 Windward Shore Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 ; WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain 573 sq. ft. of rip rap, a 12' x 12' boat lift, 4' x 12' aluminum ramp, two wood piers (5' x 31' and 5' x 25'), and 8' x 12' floating wood dock, collectively, the "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; and GPIN: CITY PROPERTY KNOWN AS TREASURE CANAL (NO GPIN ASSIGNED) GPIN: 2409-19-3201 (2224 WINDWARD SHORE DRIVE) 1 WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of City property known as Treasure Canal, the "Encroachment Area", and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit the Temporary Encroachment within the Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid to the City, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City hereby grants to the Grantee permission to use the Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into the Encroachment Area as shown on that certain exhibit plat entitled: "EXHIBIT A ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT SHOWING PROPOSED RIP RAP, BOAT LIFT, ALUMINUM RAMP, WOOD PIER AND FLOATING WOOD DOCK FOR NORBERT & EVELYN WILSON LOCATED ON LOT 60, SECTION 1, BAY ISLAND M.B. 45, PG. 37, 37A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", having a Scale of 1" = 40', dated January 15, 2021, and prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and to which reference is made for a more particular description. Providing however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately removing, or ordering the Grantee to remove, all or any part of the Temporary 2 Encroachment from the Encroachment Area in the event of an emergency or public necessity, and Grantee shall bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from the Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the construction, location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood that any existing encroachments referenced in the Exhibit or this Agreement are the ongoing maintenance obligation of the Grantee and the City disclaims any ownership interest or maintenance obligation of such encroachments. 3 It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in effect liability insurance with the City as a named insured in an amount not less than $500,000.00 per person injured and property damage per incident, combined, with the City listed as an additional insured. The company providing the insurance must be registered and licensed to provide insurance in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the construction, location, and/or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setback requirements, as established by the City. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of the Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such 4 compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Norbert Wilson and Evelyn Wilson, the said Grantee, have caused this Agreement to be executed by their signatures. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. (THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) 5 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By (SEAL) City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2021, by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, on its behalf. He/She is personally known to me. (SEAL) Notary Public Notary Registration Number: My Commission Expires: (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk/Authorized Designee of the City Clerk STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2021, by , CITY CLERK/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, on its behalf. She is personally known to me. (SEAL) Notary Public Notary Registration Number: My Commission Expires: 6 vi,"(----1--- NORBERT WILSON, Owner r EV YN WILSON, Owner il STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF V►ray n i o,, ex b to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of( 'h day of J,L,�.1 y , 2021, by Norbert Wilson and Evelyn Wilson. DAYLE FANNIN3-anG NOTARY PUBLIC ,^l.. (SEAL) REGISTRATION 117806893 Notary ublic COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 30,2022 4 Notary Registration Number: 1 g 0L9 L 3 My Commission Expires: J),-A-rt,�, 30, 00,D, APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM: 1, 1) CrflAi g4L I S ATURE �DANA HAR EYER T SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT 7 TREASURE CANAL SEE SHEET 2 NOTES: NOW OR FORMERLY FOR DETAIL 1. THIS PLAN WAS PERFORMED CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A TITLE REPORT. OVERALL AREA OF 21.3' 75.6' S 66'55'53" E (PLAT) 2. THIS EXHIBIT IS INTENDED ENCROACHMENT 92.31' (PLAT) FOR AN ENCROACHMENT \ - — _' 7 8,1 S 67'24'14" E (CALC.) REQUEST ONLY. ;1 94.92' (CALL.) EDGE OF WATER oo 16.6__ =::; ;,,,;:,;,;; ��1, yam..,1■� EXISTING *111MI=�'; IV NTIMBER 't ;c' CD BULKHEAD ;,.7,._4; o �"-c,: CT J \ J j -O e, PIN(F) Va rn rn EXISTING Q FRAME SHED NOW OR FORMERLY NORBERT & EVELYN WILSON Z I.N. 20200630000565440 4; LOT 60, SECTION 1 2 NOW OR FORMERLY NOW OR FORMERLY BAY ISLAND .... BRENTON RODGERS & JUSTIN WHEELER & c'' M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A w ASHLEY NICHOLE OSGOOD MARCIA WHEELER m GPIN: 2409-19-3201 o I.N. 20110721000735000 I.N. 20120910001031900 LOT 61, SECTION 1 LOT 59, SECTION 1 N PppFtGH FA_ 00 G m BAY ISLAND BAY ISLAND N No • M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A o ,� N GPIN: 2409-19-3199 GPIN: 2409-19-2203 o O SS��ME 'v gR\#�224 w � o ��Pi I1 Op G PoRcN �Q r/ N STEP C � Ly • v DA I\ UTLER Y q ... • • c.No. 3839521 .m .. PIN(F) 'P 15, 1 105 .�,s 1 & PIN(F) R,2010•g3 pR*vE S%ONAL C''- &_ SHARE 765 p1 IRCLE N1ND�PRD 1501 • i' 3/F Pp,SS C Mg 45, P CO EXHIBIT A ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT SHOWING PROPOSED 0 40 80 RIP RAP, BOAT LIFT, ALUMINUM RAMP, WOOD PIER AND FLOATING WOOD DOCK 1111.11 FOR NORBERT & EVELYN WILSON GALLUP LOCATED ON SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS LOT 60, SECTION 1, BAY ISLAND 323 FIRST COLONIAL ROAD M.B. 45, PG. 37, 37A VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA 23454 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA (757)428-8132(757)425-2390 FAX Scale: 1"=40' 1 Date: JANUARY 15, 2021 I Sheet: 1 of 2 W:\Wilson,Bert-2224 Windward Shore Drive\Encroachment Exhibit\20-72 Encroachment.dwg,9/20/2021 11:52:25 AM NOTES: 1. ALL FRAMING LUMBER SHALL BE SYP SALT TREATED WITH A MINIMUM RETENTION OF 0.80 LBS. PER CUBIC FOOT. 2. ALL HARDWARE AND FASTENERS SHALL BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED. 3. ALL PIER AND LIFT PILES SHALL BE SYP SALT TREATED WITH A MINIMUM RETENTION OF 2.5 LBS. PER CUBIC FOOT. TREASURE CANAL NOW OR FORMERLY PROPOSED 4'x12' CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH ALUMINUM RAMP �m M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A PROPOSED J PROPOSED 5'x25'WOOD PIER 8'x12' FLOATING 'O PROPOSED 12'x12' BOAT LIFT WOOD DOCK OVERALL AREA OF 75.6' - _ \- - - - 1_ 01 ENCROACHMENT — — — EDGEIOF WATER 9 PROPOSED 5'x31' ^, ^, all 1 ' 1 WOOD PIER ` !. Q' r, vre • • •i:_,-�� •f0.l�j ��. v • hmr [a '1 i•gt 1:!rN".li''i■: 4aiZ3 35.63 NI S 66'55'53" E (PLAT) 92.31' (PLAT) • S 67'24'14" E (CALC.) 94.92' (CALC.) Z j��I p a? ••1 PROPOSED VDOT CoD •,i•��t•� *. CLASS 1A RIP-RAP `r 5i�Z� EXISTING (573 S.F.) NOW OR FORMERLY TIMBER BRENTON RODGERS & to BULKHEAD ASHLEY NICHOLE OSGOOD NOW OR FORMERLY PIN(F) I.N. 20110721000735000 JUSTIN WHEELER & N LOT 61, SECTION 1 MARCIA WHEELER BAY ISLAND I.N. 20120910001031900 M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A LOT 59, SECTION 1 Z o GPIN: 2409-19-3199 N BAY ISLAND o M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A `A. o NOW OR FORMERLY co GPIN: 2409-19-2203 EXISTING NORBERT & EVELYN WILSON LA. 1,' FRAME I.N. 20200630000565440 �0 m SHED LOT 60, SECTION 1 BAY ISLAND 1,) M.B. 45 P. 37, 37A LA ��pI,TH OF GPIN: 2409-19-3201 O Gf0 20 40 O S u DA e‘IPC,'%i R IQ` c.No. 38395 EXHIBIT A 521 lk 4' ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT SHOWING PROPOSED 0.s 1'1 + RIP RAP, BOAT LIFT, ALUMINUM RAMP, WOOD 4z.vs, AL E�6p PIER AND FLOATING WOOD DOCK FOR NORBERT & EVELYN WILSON GALLUP LOCATED ON SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS LOT 60, SECTION 1, BAY ISLAND Lp 323 FIRST COLONIAL ROAD M.B. 45, PG. 37, 37A VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA 23454 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA (757)428-8132(757)425-2390 FAX Scale: 1"=20' I Date: JANUARY 15, 2021 I Sheet: 2 of 2 W:\Wilson,Bert-2224 Windward Shore Drive\Encroachment Exhibit\20-72 Encroachment.dwg,9/20/2021 11:52:27 AM N n «_U..t. LEEWARD SHORE(� ; „e- W--�i- E Mir - _ t i."1 SPINDRIFT RD i I alitHS, r 411 41, L___________ N' " 2409-19-3201 / e r t �/ fkI' 1Oi , 11- , . kitm - ii' ! . _______ V ' �; •*. WINDW -D SHORE DR , is , •r LOCATION MAP ` I ENCROACHMENT REQUEST FOR Legend NORBERT AND EVELYN WILSON C=12409-19-3201 3 r- 2224 WINDWARD SHORE DRIVE it GPIN: 2409-19-3201 Encroachment Area Feet City Properties 0 100 200 400 N „"-_- _ f lee - �- LEEWARD SHORE DR SHORE DR ��111Wr p�1- E 4\4 )1 SITE Doli, a t 111 lir r� ell iiingfr36 ,, 40. 2409-19-3201‘Ifh .,,,,,i-,, zz7 11111 =11 ci Lj co-\\ liF 7 1 -:, Ejii Fj C=D IIW 11111Lsis WINDWARD SHORE:DR A,i E _,-,-- lin LI I - rs-----7 - ------T----------------li -1_ illi j\I1III ' L r' LOCATION MAP ENCROACHMENT REQUEST FOR Legend NORBERT AND EVELYN WILSON 2409-19-3201 2224 WINDWARD SHORE DRIVE GPIN: 2409-19-3201 Encroachment Area Feet 0 100 200 400 City Properties ;..t.f. , .., , ii...; • .. Ir's ••.- • _ . ., 04' •• •„, , „•,••• i - •_.-,, f .V ...... ''' . ..IIIIIg A g ii .. . . spr -.., ' 14 er.i: • . - • . * ' . 14 iiet;sAr. •- • 01111104- i it. N. - -,dit. 6 I . . • ' . ' ' ,.. . . ' .' '' V.? ' At ' ' ' _ g • - ' VI - • •• . ik r 41',01 :,,... ,,,, • - t r • ,.. • 9. . ._ okr 41. . - . ,S gi ,.. 't 1 •=. • ,-7 ii• • _ _ • . l'—' ' =-' ..4 i-''-• f. le •. A ,' --'4. ir 4.....•..-, 4 - ' . ' • f '..- ' .." 1. ,•• All , ,_..., !IL f i ' • e i.4, • . .4. -,. __ ..., 4" . • f ' 0- ''' "'' - , '71' L.:.;.: ' '"-• - '' . F • 4. ... ' li . . . . ... . ......... .. ........ -4 , .-._ --, ..._ _,! - • _ .• ... . ., • - !••- 40 - „rip-._ ..... ,. .., , ,,, t-,'-- - ., . . .._. ' r - -00 kilif at I Pi 0 - - . - -', ' t:' --• ; - .••'-• • , ,-` -• 4 *t. - ,:' -„ mxq - •-*-:"A * , ill . 1 ' li r „ .. ., •* :-.•'- • ••• - 1 ''••• f • . .-- ..._ . ..__- - ..,w 14 •''..11111 ' ,• .• _ • ,Milikillikt• - . '1,_ • ' •••,--- i , • ,• ii- :-' - ' ••''''.4•••-' %* • 0 ' • I' 4 .404%,..,.. - t•''', '0-''- • i -- • • • Iftm .• l ' ' pg .,g, 1 .=.. i- = . . .. ' - .= .4.• p ''- • ''''-. .alb. • l'" -',. ..- r 44• - I __. 1//a- ./ ..u.....P. lg.,. . .• ;' '. I. 4 .s ;- .*'•-;:',J-..". • .ih, ii , 'IF -1 , (... . • .. , 41 ...: \ ..„,a.' .......*v4www • r'' • [ .• id ,,,„t .- / : -='. -• '' - -1' ' ..; ='• .' . ._,_ ..3. •:, .. g , •' if.. • P,- ; g.-. - '11,001 • A. •41 -4. , , , . , 4-_:- ,. , -7,-...•,..,_.„„„Q..,, . ,I • • • .. 4, .., :, ., 4, ;-. C.. e •. •... • .4• : I, )1[6;:46 3.....°'•i'''''''-`"'. "' - ' " n; •'''-':• ' -:•' .-' 36. - . , . , aii '...t t • 4,,,...,,,• ; ,„.,...._ `C- t ' - ' 1 1,- Jo. . ,...,,,.• .... , , 61'''. - 06,m, • - ' - • - .1,« -, t iii teN. • _ .. , • ' «. - -N ....- -..,',."1. ••- . - 4,-144 • ... -. =•,• _,Jee .. ,..,....-.4, ' „..•,i;,...°;•.', . ., • ..= '-'....ii-Pilf4... ' -.:...,.. 44, i r-..- ....., 1 , .. -Pri- - ', - i'- .., I ip' '=.- . ''. • -='; • • • 1 r -.' , ;- ,'. 4-- ,__,Arift,--, --' - rW4 • , . - '-, *- Aii A •• - : '6"-- ',• ' ,•-,-.'".777Z- 4'.' r LL . A ' .., a, #•oe;,:..• '''•. :' :.:-.•-'''7- ' .:4 ' 'l• ' ' r16' ' *'-' fel -1 :a;-11 t l•, ''' • ' : • ,Irg• . ..are''' + ',".•Vr. .,• ',X. 7,-.!.'_-.-,--11,2441r",:6,*1.6 ;' -.'L',v, ,., , •?• 'e. ::t•L; •' r ... _ , ...„ r., . - ,f,•• ...e.,,,..„.. le:...ii,•j...,,,,.4,„t..,,,1/2 . 4 , !,44„,fi2...;,,,,.,.i.,-....10,1 ,., *-1‘ :. ;A . oR i ', •27 '``,0 4 i.--..?.i 4ri,..-.7`- .1 t'7.-..1....i.c!,* ..:t..-44-.. e. *: . 4 '• . ',. '• . -• •''''-• .FWA'-• , .. ..'• 1 , '' ;'' .'0404 .'"t •-'t(00;74-7A_."' . . , j%,• - . -44.. .. 0, •,,r.• f•k ij, ‘,, 17t te, ' • r" • -- -_._••-.0, , . • 7'' • 'I, W ,.. IA*, .1*- r.- • 44 - •• ' • , .4.70. _.*'41 ..-i---- ' ft•_ - PP ,,,,_,n,_ al, 2111,r i . ,..t- - • A- • .. .k..4:-.•;.1_?0 .._ . . . , . A , ..,.. Aiiilf •,..,7r.;Pr 1-''V. . • ba• . .:-..?, • ....,• - ._ - • • , _ ____ ":, e':• le •,• • pi• . • .?er. „.4 ''.••Ti 4,1.1:."-,'Xi!. ' ' •- . -7.---..,-,..., --;:4' *At 4 . --' • . . •• • ' - ' ...e ,• --t. k -' 'Z.,/IP • - - 0 , . - 4 it'• ' 7 , !,, ' .-, . •;,.:, ,', .?k 4'4 . t. 7'•-•_ .--4" '''t •' -- ., .-, - it II, .". .#,..,-. 4....•''''i' ,-,,,,- A Fr 1.;41111; , v. ‘. ' 1 . , 4, , ,.... • 1 I .-— i'''i• - 1 " --"' -;.41.- ,. LI . ' : .. . . . .. . 'A ...1-: . '1 . - ....• - .0„."1144. ..: 4L• - j$4 '1' 0-. 4 " --i- ''. , _„...-- .. - ._ --, N• 1., • - ' I ' t f .:• * .-1-.• f4 h."_ * - 4-*•,i 4-4-7` ''4•7-v.11 -.• " -411-*,.•-'", -!• -.,...: -4,-, ---'.---' ' •"•- I: :! — . ,44 . -;,1, '. , - 4-- .4-. ., , .---L4.,-.•--- .i.....-...• — _14..7 7.,•,„ . • fi::r...' . ,.- 4•4*- '7-.7,, .407.44- • • !,.:•_. _i ,. ,_ 4.. . i . . al` a of • • •' ' . A. ••• '? di `t-A , '11.. I '. .. , '.'• r Al t- ' ' .. 1' . .C4 ift . 4f5:4111-4.•: . • , Tr, ,k - . .. • • -- ...•-• r.„--e,..r. ,,- Q . is.« ' .. ,•,.. ,, "a - ' .la •;i:,,,,- — '. a «,••• ,-..-' ,ill ••le .4,'1 P..6t.• ...,"of i_ • ..6,If aelf ., _ .• , d , . .‘ , : - , . ' ...2,4 -1 (--,, . 0 - - ._ p 4.--• - _ ";'kts444jrAr' _ j" 3 / ` *. p illimit a• i - - t4 t, '144„$'44**.ip:e* ]a ,„4 :_. ^arc s i >� V Y , _ A x ,0-, t "° 4 * } a _ r '!, v• �.'x,"ter °` ti r ,. + • _ 0 f �a _ a �^ . • Disclosure Statement City of Viryinia 8 Planning & Community Development - The disclosures contained in this form are necessary to inform public officials who may vote on the application as to whether they have a conflict of interest under Virginia law. The completion and submission of this form is required for all applications that pertain to City real estate matters or to the development and/or use of property in the City of Virginia Beach requiring action by the City Council or a City board, commission or other body. Applicant Disclosure Applicant Name NI0 r,e I+ U I (5v/\ Ll nP VV6) y WI IS G11 Does the applicant have a representative? ; 3 es Lf No • If yes, list the name of the representative. nGz+r 1 Is the applicant a corporation, partnership,firm,business,trust or an unincorporated business? ❑ Yes E'J No • If yes, list the names of all officers, directors, members,trustees,etc. below. (Attach a list if necessary) • If yes, list the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary1 or affiliated business entity'relationship with the applicant. (Attach a list if necessary) 1"Parent-subsidiary relationship" means"a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, VA. Code§ 2.2-3101. 2"Affiliated business entity relationship"means"a relationship,other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or(iii)there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code§2.2-3101. Revised 11.0.9.2020 Wage Disclosure Statement \B City of Virginia Beach Planning & Community Development • Is\ rb.. Known Interest by Public Official or Employee Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach h ve an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? ❑ Yes o • If yes,what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Applicant Services Disclosure 1. Does the applicant have any existing financing(mortgage,deeds of trust,cross-collateralization,etc)or are they considering fi ncing in nnection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? Yes any �D►'ryo • If yes,identify the financial institutions providing the service. Loan p ai- .Co rh LC, 2. Does the applplica ave a real estate broker/agent/realtor for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property? ❑ Yes ld'No • If yes,identify the company and individual providing the service. 3. Does the applicant have services for accounting and/or preparation of tax returns provided in connectionwith the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? 0 Yes LINO • If yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. 4. Does the applicant have services from an architect/landscape architect/land planner provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? Yes 0 No • If yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. G c„t,Li^q 5,4P)!Aft 0 De.,u1 Q 3g,tXIi,-7 5. Is there any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property? 0 Yes 01'No • If yes,identify the purchaser and purchaser's service providers. Revised 11.09.2020 2 I P a g e Disclosure Statement 11/4B City of Virginia Ba,dl y 0 „ Planning & Community Development .4\ 6. Does the applicant have a construction contractor� in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? ❑ Yes lJ to NO "-r3 Q • If yes, identify the company and individual providing the service. 7. Does the applicant have an engineer/surveyor/agent�ge in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? LLB Yes 0 No • If yes, identify the firm and individual providing the service. G am LV c'nr7 tie e„, k 4 lA-r- 8. Is the applicant receiving legal services in con ion with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? 0 Yes O • If yes, identify the firm and individual providing the service. Applicant Signature I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission,City Council,VBDA,CBPA,Wetlands Board or any public body or committee in connection with this application. '//' SAL t4111 (AA4-JP(‘- Applicant Signature Iv��rb�rk R ► ( s S‘"\ , ?Yu Y.4 w D. t./ l s,, S n 0FA� Print Name and Title j � l T7 /701-I Date Is the applicant also the owner of the subject property? El Yes 0 No • If yes,you do not need to fill out the owner disclosure statement. FOR CITY USE ONLY/All disclosures must be updated two(2)weeks prior to any Planning Commission and City Council meeting that pertains to the applications ElNo changes as of Date _. Signature Print Name Revised 11.09.2020 Wage [ rf*A, M 41 i�\ fc • pi '`4w„M:i F` CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM J ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia State Compensation Board to the Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office (VBSO) FY 2021-22 Operating Budget and to Approve Bonuses for Locally Funded Sworn Officer Appointees MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 • Background: During Special Session II of the 2021 Virginia General Assembly, allocations of the Commonwealth's distribution of federal American Rescue Plan Act funds in FY22 were determined. As a result, language and funding is provided in the current fiscal year for a one-time $3,000 bonus payment for Compensation Board- funded sheriffs and sheriffs' deputies. The Compensation Board communicated federal guidelines regarding "premium pay" and a requirement that individuals receiving the bonus must work in a sworn position for a minimum of 231 hours, or approximately 5.8 weeks, to be eligible for the bonus. The Compensation Board determined that all sworn deputies and regional jail officers in a Compensation Board funded position will be eligible for the bonus if they occupy the position on the date the bonus is paid. For those paid the bonus prior to completion of 231 hours, reimbursement will be deferred to the following month pending completion of the required time period and could result in a pro-rated reimbursement in the event of a subsequent early departure from a sworn position. The Sheriffs Office has 389 Compensation Board-funded positions under these guidelines. The Compensation Board requires localities to implement the bonus no later than November 30, 2021. The Compensation Board will provide the funding for this allocated bonus in its December reimbursement to the Sheriffs Office. The VBSO is scheduling the bonus to be paid in the November 12, 2021 payroll. The Sheriffs Office has an additional 19 sworn appointees who meet the eligibility guidelines but are locally funded. In an effort of fairness for all appointees, the Sheriff does not want to exclude them from this process and will be providing them the bonus. The Sheriffs Office has indicated their ability to absorb those costs by using vacancy savings. • Considerations: Accept funding from the Compensation Board for the 389 eligible individuals and appropriate it to the Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office FY 2021-22 Operating Budget. The total funding to be received is $1,256,276, which includes $1,167,000 for the bonus payments and $89,276 to cover employer-paid payroll taxes. Additionally, this ordinance will authorize the Sheriff to provide $3,000 bonuses to the 19 locally funded sworn appointees. The total funding for this action is $61,361, which includes $57,000 in bonus payments and $4,361 for employer-paid payroll taxes. • Alternative: Should the Sheriffs Office run into issues in the future, an additional option could be to redirect operating account savings to their personnel accounts to meet payroll needs. In FY 2020-21, the Sheriffs Office operating accounts had a funds available balance of$161,607.91. • Public Information: Normal Council Agenda notification process. • Attachments: Ordinance and Compensation Board Memorandum dated October 1, 2021 Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office City Manager: 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE 2 FUNDING FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 3 STATE COMPENSATION BOARD TO THE VIRGINIA 4 BEACH SHERIFF'S OFFICE (VBSO) FY 2021-22 5 OPERATING BUDGET AND TO APPROVE BONUSES FOR 6 LOCALLY FUNDED SWORN OFFICER APPOINTEES 7 8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 9 VIRGINIA, THAT: 10 11 1) $1,256,276 from the Compensation Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia is 12 hereby accepted and appropriated, with funds from the Commonwealth increased 13 accordingly, to the FY 2021-22 Operating Budget of the Virginia Beach Sheriff's 14 Office for the purpose of providing one-time bonuses in the amount of $3,000 to 15 Sheriff Deputies. 16 17 2) The one-time payment of $3,000 bonuses to locally funded sworn officer 18 appointees of the Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office is hereby approved. These 19 appointees are not reimbursed by the Compensation Board and are therefore 20 ineligible for bonuses provided for by the General Assembly. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of , 2021. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of all members of the City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: cieL„,,,441r/r7140 Budget & Management Services A rney's iDffice CA15560 R-1 October 7, 2021 TYRONE NELSON "*'' CRAIG BURNS CHAIRMAN d STACI HENSHAW EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS ROBYN DE SOCIO EXECUTIVE SECRETARY COMMONWEALTH LTH OF VIRGINIA Compensation Board P.O.Box 710 Richmond,Virginia 23218-0710 October 1, 2021 MEMORANDUM TO: Sheriffs and Regional Jail Superintendents City Managers and County Administrators FROM: Robyn M. de Socio Executive Secretary SUBJECT: Additional Information regarding FY22 ARPA Bonus for Sworn Sheriffs, Sheriffs' Deputies & Regional Jail Officers I am writing to provide additional information following communications dated August 16, 2021 and August 27, 2021 regarding a one-time $3,000 bonus payment for Compensation Board funded sworn positions in sheriffs' offices and regional jails, including sheriffs, sheriffs' deputies, regional jail superintendents and corrections officers in regional jails. Earlier this month, several offices submitted requests by the September 8, 2021 deadline identifying sworn deputy sheriffs or regional jail officers occupying a "partially-funded" position on the Compensation Board payroll. The Compensation Board considered these requests at its meeting on September 23, 2021 and approved the allocation of bonus funding for these positions. Notification of these approvals will be provided separately to sheriffs' offices, regional jails and localities. Updated spreadsheets we will provide when your locality pays the bonus will identify the funding to be reimbursed for these additional positions as specifically requested and approved by the Compensation Board. Please note that consideration of funding for the bonus for individuals not in deputy sheriff/regional jail officer positions only included "partially-funded" positions, and did not include other nonsworn position classifications such as administrative or cook positions. You will recall that the Compensation board encourages each locality and regional jail to implement the bonus as soon as possible, but no later than November 30, 2021. Once the locality determines the date for payment of the bonus, please notify our staff of the determined date by email at customerservice(ascb.virginia.gov. Please provide notice of the planned date as soon as possible, before the date of payment. I am also writing to provide clarification and final guidance regarding ARPA categorization and eligibility for the bonus on the date of payment. In my initial communication, I indicated that individuals would be eligible for the bonus if they occupied a sworn funded deputy or regional jail position on the Compensation Board payroll on the date of implementation of the bonus, and then subsequent communication identified federal rules MEMO: Sheriffs and Regional Jail Superintendents, City Managers and County Administrators October 1, 2021 Page 2 of 3 regarding "premium pay" and a requirement that individuals receiving the bonus must work in a sworn position in the sheriff's office or regional jail for a minimum of 231 hours, or approximately 5.8 weeks, to be eligible for the bonus. As federal rules for ARPA allow premium pay to be made on a retrospective or prospective basis, we have determined that all sworn deputies and regional jail officers in a Compensation Board funded position will be eligible for the bonus if they occupy the position on the date the bonus is paid. As this could include deputies or jail officers hired shortly before the date of implementation that have not yet completed 231 hours, the Compensation Board will provide hire date information in the spreadsheet provided when your locality pays the bonus, and require verification of time in a sworn position for those that do not appear yet to meet the requirements. For those paid the bonus prior to completion of 231 hours, reimbursement will be deferred to the following month pending completion of the required time period and could result in a pro-rated reimbursement in the event of a subsequent early departure from a sworn position. As indicated, when the locality pays the bonus, we will provide a spreadsheet to the sheriff's office and locality identifying those positions on the Compensation Board payroll on the date of payment that are eligible for reimbursement of the bonus (sheriffs, sworn deputies, regional jail officers, and those "partially funded" positions containing sworn deputies/officer that were specifically requested for consideration and approved by the Board). Sheriffs' offices will be requested to verify hire dates of those appearing to have worked less than 231 hours on the date of bonus payment, and local governing bodies (County Administrators, City Managers, or delegated chief Finance personnel) will be required to certify that bonus payments were made to the identified personnel in order to seek reimbursement. Federal rules include an additional stipulation for payment of the bonus where the "premium pay" (bonus) would increase a worker's total annual pay above 150 percent of Virginia's average annual wage for all occupations or their residing county's average annual wage (whichever is higher), as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, that the Commonwealth must provide (US) Treasury and make publicly available a written justification of how the premium pay or grant is responsive to workers performing essential work during the public health emergency. In the case of sheriffs and sworn deputies or regional jail officers where the current total salary (including local supplement) or the current total salary plus the bonus would increase the individual's total pay above $115,815 for certain Northern VA localities and $90,240 for all others, the Compensation Board has stipulated that, unlike those professions where premium pay may be unwarranted, the vast majority of sworn sheriffs, deputies and regional jails officers are comprised of low- to moderate-income workers, and those who do earn more than this threshold regularly work side-by-side with, and experience an equal share of the extraordinary risks associated with COVID-19. Unlike most employees, sworn sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and regional jail officers do not have the routine ability to isolate themselves from public interactions through telework; rather, they have been called upon to fulfill their essential public safety duties at great personal risk throughout the pandemic. As such, disparate treatment of a comparatively small number of deputies and officers on the basis of relatively small differences in earnings would create significant pay inequities whereby some would receive compensation reflective of the extraordinary risks they undertook and others, being denied this compensation, would earn less than those they serve alongside. MEMO: Sheriffs and Regional Jail Superintendents, City Managers and County Administrators October 1, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Again, once the locality determines the date for payment of the bonus, please notify our staff of the determined date by email at customerservice(@scb.virginia.gov. Please provide notice of the planned date as soon as possible, before the date of payment, so that we may provide final spreadsheet information confirming positions to be reimbursed and instructions regarding any additional information needed regarding hire dates and certifications for requesting reimbursement. If you have any questions, please contact a member of the Compensation Board staff below. Compensation Board Staff: Contact (click for email): Telephone: Bill Fussell, Senior Fiscal William.fussell(a�scb.virginia.gov 804-225-3435 Technician Joan Bailey, Senior Fiscal Joan.bailev(a scb.virginia.gov 804-225-3351 Technician Charlotte Lee, Budget Manager Charlotte.lee(ascb.virginia.gov 804-225-3366 Robyn de Socio, Executive Robyn.desocio(a"&scb.virginia.gov 804-225-3439 Secretary s:\BiennialBudget FY21-FY22\2021 GA Special Session II\Sher-RJ bonus FY22\pmed appvl,certification and addt'I information 10-1-21.docx / N jigl, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM J ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept $136,429,703 of American Rescue Plan Act Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds and to Appropriate $82,063,098 for Stormwater, Parks and Recreation Infrastructure, and Facilities Capital Projects MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 • Background: On March 11, 2021 , the President signed the American Rescue Plan Act (the "Act" or "ARPA") into law (P.L. 117-2). In Section 9901 of the Act, the Congress appropriated funds to the U. S. Department of the Treasury to make direct apportionments to states, territories, cities, and counties. As part of the legislation, local governments with consolidated governments, such as Virginia Beach, were eligible to receive funds from both the city and county components of Section 9901. Through the Treasury's allocation formula, Virginia Beach's combined share is $136,429,703. On May 25, 2021, the City Council was presented with information regarding the Treasury's eligibility standards, as contained in the Interim Final Rule (31 Code of Federal Regulations Part 35, Subpart A). At the same meeting, the Council noted priorities for the use of funds and instructed the City Manager to develop a recommended budget to be presented to the City Council for its consideration. Throughout the summer, the City Manager and the Department of Budget and Management Services conducted a simulated budget process for the allocation of the City's combined share. After review of more than 100 proposals and more than $575 million in requests, a City Manager's Recommended ARPA Budget was delivered to the Council on September 14, 2021. On September 21 and 28, 2021 , the City Council received additional briefings on topics contained within the Recommended ARPA Budget. Because the amount of funds exceeds 1% of the City's annual budget, a public hearing was held during the City Council's October 5, 2021 Formal Session. The Council held a reconciliation session on the use of the ARPA funds at its October 12, 2021 workshop. At that meeting, City Council directed staff to place an agenda request and ordinance on the October 19th agenda appropriating necessary funding to implement the portion of the City Manager's Recommended ARPA Budget related to capital projects. The remaining allocation of ARPA funds is to be addressed after further discussion of the City Council. • Considerations: The attached ordinance accepts the entire $ 136,429,703 of ARPA funding and appropriates $82,063,098 in ARPA funding to various projects summarized by the City Council priority categories below: Council Category Total Dollar Amount Percent of ARPA Funds Stormwater $44,880,000 33% City Facilities and Asset $37,183,098 27% Backlog Repair Total ARPA Allocated $82,063,098 60% The remaining $54,366,605 in ARPA funding is to remain unappropriated until a future point in time. It is anticipated that City Council will consider an agenda request and ordinance to appropriate the remaining ARPA funding on November 9th. Until that point in time, under City Council's review and consideration is the remainder of the City Manager's Recommended ARPA Budget not funded through this action item. The following table summarizes the City Manager's recommendations by City Council priority category: Council Category _ Total Dollar Amount Percent of ARPA Funds Economic Support and $28,800,000 21% Assistance Broadband $7,000,000 5% Behavioral and Mental $2,224,000 2% Health Affordable Housing $6,314,200 5% Contingency Set Aside 1 $10,028,405 7% Total ARPA Un-Allocated $54,366,605 40% The ordinance also includes safeguards in cases where a project can no longer be completed within ARPA deadlines or if future federal legislative or regulatory action restricts what is allowed to be spent with this source of funds. • Public Information: Normal Council Agenda process. A public hearing on the subject was held on October 5, 2021 and was advertised in the Beacon on September 26, 2021 . Additionally, information on the overall process was communicated in the Friday packets of June 4 and July 30, 2021 , and Council questions were answered within the Friday packets of September 17 and 24, 2021 . • Recommendations: Adopt the attached ordinance. • Attachments: Ordinance; CIP Detail Sheets (8) Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager City Manager: 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT $136,429,703 OF AMERICAN 2 RESCUE PLAN ACT CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL 3 FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS AND TO APPROPRIATE 4 $82,063,098 FOR STORMWATER, PARKS AND 5 RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE, AND FACILITIES 6 CAPITAL PROJECTS 7 8 WHEREAS, since March 2020, the coronavirus pandemic has impacted the 9 citizens of the City of Virginia Beach as well as the operations of the City of Virginia Beach; 10 11 WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, the President of the United States signed the 12 American Rescue Plan Act into law (P.L. 117-2); 13 14 WHEREAS, Section 9901 (Title IX, Subtitle M) of the American Rescue Plan Act 15 created Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds; 16 17 WHEREAS, the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated 18 direct federal funding to governments throughout the United States, including the City of 19 Virginia Beach; 20 21 WHEREAS, the City received allocations from both the city and county portions of 22 the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds as Section 9901 allowed that "a 23 unit of general local government that has formed a consolidated government may receive 24 a distribution under each...paragraphs..." 25 26 WHEREAS, the United States Treasury formula apportioned a total of 27 $136,429,703 to the City of Virginia Beach; 28 29 WHEREAS, in May 2021, the United States Treasury released guidance for the 30 funds under the Interim Final Rule (31 CFR Part 35, Subpart A); 31 32 WHEREAS, on May 25, 2021, the City Council established priorities for the use of 33 the City's funds and instructed the City Manager to prepare a Recommended Budget; 34 35 WHEREAS, the City Manager presented an American Rescue Plan Act 36 Recommended Budget on September 14, 2021; 37 38 WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed use of Recommended Budget was 39 held on October 5, 2021; and 40 41 WHEREAS, the City Council requested dividing the recommendations such that 42 only capital projects be voted upon at the October 19th Formal Meeting; 43 44 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 45 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA THAT: 46 47 1. $136,429,703 from the United States Department of the Treasury is hereby 48 accepted. 49 50 2. Of the $136,429,703, $82,063,098 is hereby appropriated into the FY 2021-22 51 Operating Budget, with revenue from the federal government increased 52 accordingly, and transferred, as pay-as-you go financing, to the FY 2021-22 53 Capital Improvement Program. The revenues from this pay-as-you-go transfer will 54 support the appropriations made for projects included in enactment clauses 4, 6, 55 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18. 56 57 3. A new capital project (#PG100585, "Enhanced Neighborhood Rehabilitation — 58 ARPA") to provide stormwater neighborhood rehabilitation is hereby authorized 59 within the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 60 61 4. $23,580,000 is hereby appropriated to Capital Project #PG100585 within the 62 Stormwater Section of the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 63 64 5. A new capital project (#PG100586, "Lake Management—ARPA") to enhance lake 65 management in the City is hereby authorized within the FY 2021-22 Capital 66 Improvement Program. 67 68 6. $21,300,000 is hereby appropriated to Capital Project #PG100586 within the 69 Stormwater Section of the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 70 71 7. A new capital project (#PG100587, "Parks Capital Infrastructure Replacement — 72 ARPA") to provide additional neighborhood parks maintenance is hereby 73 authorized within the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 74 75 8. $15,200,000 is hereby appropriated to Capital Project#PG100587 within the Parks 76 and Recreation Section of the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 77 78 9. A new capital project (#PG100588, "Recreation Center HVAC Replacement / 79 Repair — ARPA") to provide recreation center HVAC improvements is hereby 80 authorized within the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 81 82 10. $3,650,000 is hereby appropriated to Capital Project #PG100588 within the 83 Buildings and Assets Section of the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 84 85 11. A new capital project (#PG100589, "Central Utility Plant Enhancements— ARPA") 86 to provide repairs and replacements to the Central Utility Plant is hereby authorized 87 within the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 88 89 12. $6,100,000 is hereby appropriated to Capital Project #PG100589 within the 90 Buildings and Assets Section of the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 91 92 13. A new capital project (#PG100590, "Courts Building Direct Digital Control — 93 ARPA") to purchase and install a digital direct control system for the Courts 94 Building is hereby authorized within the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement 95 Program. 96 97 14. $2,070,000 is hereby appropriated to Capital Project #PG100590 within the 98 Buildings and Assets Section of the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 99 100 15. A new capitol project(#PG100591, "Parks and Rec Construction Yard Relocation 101 - ARPA) to construct a new Parks & Recreation Landscape Yard is hereby 102 authorized within the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 103 104 16. $9,420,098 is hereby appropriated to Capital Project #PG100591 within the 105 Buildings and Assets Section of the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 106 107 17. A new capital project (#PG100594, "Library Meeting Rooms Technology 108 Modernization —ARPA") to provide technology improvements in meeting rooms at 109 the City's Libraries is hereby authorized within the FY 2021-22 Capital 110 Improvement Program. 111 112 18. $743,000 is hereby appropriated to Capital Project #PG100594 within the 113 Information Technology Section of the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program. 114 115 19. $54,366,605 is herebt. reserved pending future action of the City Council to 116 appropriate such funds and direct the use thereof. 117 118 20. If a project approved by this ordinance is determined to be no longer be feasible 119 to be constructed within the timeframe allowed by the United States Department 120 of the Treasury, the City Manager or designee shall hold such project in abeyance 121 and seek direction by the City Council for an alternative use of the funds or 122 segmentation of such project to meet the applicable timeframe, or both. 123 124 21. If, at a subsequent date to this ordinance, further or refined guidance is issued by 125 the United States Department of the Treasury that disallows any of the projects 126 approved by this ordinance, the City Manager or designee shall hold such project 127 in abeyance and seek direction by the City Council for an alternative use of the 128 funds. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2021 . Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of all of the members of City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: AP AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY' E udget and Management Services o y's Office CA15559 R-3 October 12, 2021 Fiscal Years FY22 t rh ough FY17Capital Improvement Program Project:PG 100585 !Title:Enhanced Neighborhood Rehabilitation-ARPA Status:Proposed(ARPA) Category:Buildings&Assets Department:Public Works Project Type Project Location Project Type:Renovation/Replacement District:All Programmed Funding Programmed Appropriated Funding FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 23,580,000 23,580,000 - - - - - Description and Scope A top priority for City Council is management and planning related to the rehabilitation of the stormwater infrastructure throughout the city,with emphasis on neighborhoods which have reported stormwater needs.Work will include minor system improvements,and acquisition of necessary easements and rights-of-entry to the extent funding is available.This project will address the main purpose to prioritize rehabilitation or repair of existing neighborhood infrastructure within the framework of a comprehensive condition assessment program.Work will include critical rehabilitation stormwater improvements to mitigate neighborhood flooding for moderate rainfall events,focusing on three areas to concentrate to return the neighborhood to the design ten-year event.Those three areas of repair will include but not be limited to close circuit television inspection(CCTV),lining repair,and point repair. This project will extend the useful life of the city's stormwater infrastructure by Purpose and Need This project will extend the useful life of the city's stormwater infrastructure by systematically identifying needed rehabilitation improvements.Without this project,neighborhood drainage systems will slide outside of the desired 25 year rehabilitation cycle and result in increasing neighborhood health and safety issues.Stormwater infrastructure improvements will be made to improve the drainage system to minimize flooding.This program will help to ensure the long-term health of the City's infrastructure and guide master planning and future investment and help with the repetitive residential,roadway,and neighborhood flooding that History and Current Status This concept for this project first appeared in the FY 2019-20 CIP to help with the repetitive residential,roadway,and neighborhood flooding that has been occurring with moderate to heavy rainfall.Funding in this project will be supplemental the regular CIP project,PG 100515.Funding from the American Rescue Plan Act is designed to shorten the rehabilitation cycle,thereby returning more neighborhood back to the design 10 year event.The following neighborhoods could be completed by annual construction services: Birdneck Point,Lynnhaven Colony,Great Neck Estates,Bay Colony,Redwing,Upton Estates,Seatack,Salem Villages,Rock Creek,Redmill Farm,Foxfire,Three Oaks,Southgate, Hillcrest Farms,Birchwood Gardens,Great Neck Meadows,Pembroke Meadows,Charlestowne Lake South,Thalia Village,Thalia Manor,Courthouse Estates.Neighborhoods addressed by this project are subject to change based on field conditions.The neighborhoods identified in this paragraph are illustrative of projects that could be addressed. Operating Budget Impact Comments This project will not impact the operating budget. FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Operating Budget Impacts - - - - - - TotaIFTE - - - - - - Project Map Schedule of Artmntrs Project Activities From- 1 o Amount Design 10/21-12/24 7,229,398 Construction 10/21-12/26 10,610,120 Contingency 10/21-12/26 5,/40,481 23,580,000 Total Budgetary Cost Estimate: Amount 23,580,000 Means of Financing Funding Subclass Federal-American Rescue Plan Act 23,580,000 Total Funding: 23,580,000 Fiscal Years FY22 through FY27 Capital Improvement Program Project:PG 100586 (Title:Lake Management-ARPA Status:Proposed(ARPA) Category:Buildings&Assets Department:Public Works Project Type Project Location Project Type:Renovation/Replacement District:All Programmed Funding Programmed Appropriated Funding FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 21,300,000 21,300,000 - - - - - Description and Scope This project is for the design,construction,and maintenance of City lakes to include dredging,structural repair and/or upgrade of dams and spillways,aerators,culverts,outfalls, acquisition of necessary easements,real estate acquisition,Right-of-Way,and rights-of-entry to the extent funding is available,and other maintenance activities as necessary to support the function of non-tidal lakes within the City. Purpose and Need Non tidal lakes provide major storm water treatment benefits when they have adequate depth and are properly maintained.The failure of dams creates the risk of ecological and environmental damage to"Waters of the U.S.",such as the Lynnhaven River,Elizabeth River,and North Landing River,as well as adverse economic impacts and hazards to adjacent property owners to include residential flooding. The additional funding proposed under ARPA would reduce the current 95-year cycle to approximately 90 years. History and Current Status Funding in this project will be supplemental the regular CIP project,PG 100232,and allow for additional lakes to be addressed during the ARPA timeframe.Four bid packages would be proposed to complete the following BMP's: Bid package 1:Sabre Street Extended 1,Indian Lakes 2,Green Meadows,Holly Lake&Lynnhaven Mall#3.Bid Package#2:Lagomar #3,Lynnhaven Mall#1,Chandler Creek Canal,Rosemont Road Lake,Shoreline Lake#1.Bid Package#3:Chatham Hall,Salem Lakes#1,Glenwood Lake#1,Chapel Lake.Bid Package #4.Rolling Meadows Lake#2,Charlestowne Lake#1,Charlestowne Lake#3.The BMPs and lakes addressed by this project are subject to change based on field conditions.The bid Operating Budget Impact Comments This project will not impact the operating budget. FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Operating Budget Impacts - - - - - - Total FTE - - - - - - Protect Map Schedule of Activitses Project Activities From-1 o Amount Design 10/21-12/24 2,181,545 Construction 10/21-12/26 14,037,007 Contingency 10/21-12/26 b,081,44S 21,300,000 Total Budgetary Cost Estimate: Amount 21,300,000 Means of F.nancig Funding Subclass Federal-American 21,300,000 Rescue Plan Act Total Funding: 21,300,000 Fiscal Years FY22 through FY27 Capital Improvement Program Project:PG 100587 /Title:Parks Capital Infrastructure Replacement-ARPA Status:Proposed(ARPA) Category:Parks and Recreation Department:Parks and Recreation Project Type Project Location Project Type:Rehabilitation/Replacement District:Citywide Programmed Funding Programmed Appropriated Funding FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 • 15,200,000 15,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 Description and Scope The primary focus of this project addresses the City's backlog of park amenities through the replacement of sport courts;shelters,benches,trash cans,and tables;playground equipment at neighborhood parks and school sites;and ballfield,backstop,and bleacher replacements.Replacements and improvements will take place in parks Citywide.In addition,specific sub-projects will be programmed from this project for:Mt.Trashmore Park Ditch and Cap Repairs,Munden Point Park Restroom and Shelter Replacement,Bayville Farms Park Restroom 42 Replacement,Providence Park Trail Renovation,City View and Great Neck Park Parking Lot Maintenance,Redwing Park Parking Lot Repaving and Entrance Widening,Pleasure House Point Trail Water Crossing/Pedestrian Bridge,Woodstock Park Skatepark Lighting,and Green Run High School Tennis Court Replacement. Purpose and Need This project provides funding to address the over$30 million backlog In parks deferred capital replacement that exists throughout the City.The programmed funding for this project will address nearly 40%of the overall deferred capital replacement backlog.The current backlog of declining parks and recreation infrastucture in conjunction with the pandemic has increased usage to many parks and recreation facilities adding additional wear and tear to existing amenities. Many amenities are beyond thier useful life.If additional funds were not received,park amenities may have had to been removed for use,but may not have been replaced. History and Current Status This project first appeared in the FY 2021-22 CIP and is funded through the American Rescue Plan Act(ARPA). Operating Budget Impact Comments N/A FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Operating Budget Impacts - - - - - TotaIFTE - - - - - - Project Map Schedule of Activities Project Activities From-To Amount Design 11/21-01/24 1,000,000 Construction 01/22-08/26 14,000,000 Contingency 01/22-08/26 200.E 15,200,000 Estimate: Amount Means of Financing Funding Subclass Federal-American 15,200,000 Rescue Plan Act Total Funding: 15,200,000 Fiscal Years FY22 through FY27 Capital Improvement Program Project:PG 100588 rTitle:Recreation Centers HVAC Replacement/Repair-ARPA Status:Proposed(ARPA) Category:Buildings&Assets Department:Parks and Recreation Project Type Project Location Project Type:Renovation/Replacement District:All Programmed Funding Programmed Appropriated Funding FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 3,650,000 3,650,000 - - - - - Description and Scope This project will address previously unfunded repairs and renovations to the Heating,Ventilation and Air Conditioning(HVAC)systems at 6 CIty Recreation Centers.At the Bayside and Great Neck Recreation Centers,the project will replace the cooling tower,2 PoolPak dehumidification units,air-cooled condensers,and the exhaust fans.At Bow Creek,the project will replace the tandem chiller.At Williams Farm,the project will replace 2 pool heaters.At Seatack,the project will replace 6 rooftop units and replace the PoolPak dehumidification units.At Princess Anne,the project will replace the cooling tower. Purpose and Need The Public Works Department,Building Maintenance Division,provides maintenance,repair,and capital equipment replacement of HVAC equipment for the City's 382 City-owned buildings.Funding for capital equipment replacement is provided in the amount of$2.5 million each year in Buildings&Assets CIP#100445,"Various Buildings HVAC Rehabilitation and Renovation IV."Although$2.5 million annually enabled Building Maintenance to address a significant portion of critical HVAC repairs,there is still a large,unfunded backlog of maintenance and repair issues that need to be addressed.This project addresses unfunded,unprogrammed HVAC repairs to improve air quality at Recreation Centers. History and Current Status This project was first submitted as a stand-alone need through an FY 2021-22 ARPA budget proposal submission.6 Operating Budget Impact Comments This project will not impact the operating budget. FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Operating Budget Impacts - - - - - - Total FTE - - - - - - Project Map Schedule of Activities Project Activities From-To Amount Design 12/21-6/22 400,000 Construction 7/22-6/24 3,200,000 Contingency 12/21-6/24 50,000 3,650,000 Total Budgetary Cost Estimate: Amount 3,650,000 Means of Financing Funding Subclass Federal-American Rescue Plan Act Total Funding: 3,650,000 Fiscal Years FY22 through FY27 Capital Improvement Program Project:PG 100589 'Title:Central Utility Plant Enhancements-ARPA Status:Proposed(ARPA) Category:Buildings&Assets Department:Public Works Project Type Project Location Project Type:Renovation/Replacement District:At Programmed Funding Programmed Appropriated Funding FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 6,100,000 6,100,.rr - - - - - Description and Scope This project will address previously unfunded repairs and renovations to the Central Utility Plant located at the Municipal Center.The Central Utility Plant generates hot and chilled water,which is then distributed to 17 Municipal Center buildings to provide heating and cooling of the air and in some facilities,domestic hot water.Specifically,this project will replace 60 ice tanks used to produce chilled water,add a redundant chilled water pump#3,replace boilers 91 and#2,and replace underground piping to MH 9 1 and MH 9 4. Purpose and Need The Public Works Department,Building Maintenance Division,provides maintenance,repair,and capital equipment replacement of HVAC equipment for the City's 382 City-owned buildings. Funding for capital equipment replacement is provided in the amount of$2.5 million each year in a Buildings&Assets CIP 0100445,"Various Buildings HVAC Rehabilitation and Renovation IV."Although$2.5 million annually enabled Building Maintenance to address a significant portion of critical HVAC repairs,there is still a large,unfunded backlog of maintenance and repair issues across the City that must be addressed.This project addresses unfunded,unprogrammed HVAC repairs to improve air quality at 17 buildings at the Municipal Center. History and Current Status This project was first submitted as a stand-alone need through an FY 2021-22 ARPA budget proposal submission. Operating Budget Impact Comments This project will not impact the operating budget. FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Operating Budget Impacts - - - - - - Total FTE - - - - - - Project Map Schedule of Activities ` . • C Project Activities From-To Amount / • � L,Design 12/22-12/23 610,000 ` Construction 01/24-01/25 5,290,000 Contingency 12/22-01/25 200,000 6,100,000 . '`'tea. 1ez=. Alk. v `---,4 „t w T1IIT ttary Cost 47 A s'� ; - Estimate: "4 Amount 6,100,000 is°s «ice 3' -a•. �ff_, A ,A bclass Federal-American Rescue Plan Act Total Funding: 6,100,000 Fiscal Years FY22 through FY27 Capital Improvement Program Project:PG 100590 'Title:Courts Building Direct Digital Control-ARPA Status:Proposed(ARPA) Category:Buildings and Assets Department:Public Works Project Type Project Location Project Type:Renovation/Replacement District:Princess Anne Programmed Funding Programmed Appropriated Funding FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 2,070,000 2,070,000 - - - - - Description and Scope This project will upgrade and migrate the Municipal Center Courts Buildings 10,10A,and SOB from the Tridium Niagara AX Heating,Ventilation and Air Conditioning(HVAC)Building Automation System(BAS)to the Tridium N4 HVAC BAS.This software upgrade will also require the replacement of 330 Variable Air Volume(VAV)actuators,20 Fan Coil Unit(FCU) Hot Water(HW)actuators,supply air damper actuators,flow stations,current transducers,fan relays,thermostats and 6 Air Handling Unit controllers,hot and cold water valve actuators,sensors,Variable Frequency Drive(VFD)integration,wiring,licensing,Tridium DACE controllers,and commissioning. Purpose and Need The Tridium Niagara AX System is a Heating,Ventilation and Air Conditioning(HVAC)Building Automation System(BAS)installed in the Municipal Center Courts Buildings 10,10A, and 10B.The system consists of both hardware devices and software to manage the HVAC system.The system resides on the City's network infrastructure,and the system reached "end-of-life"on July 1,2021.The system is no longer be able to receive updates and support from the vendor.The system is vulnerable to security attacks and there will be no support from the vendor in the event of a system outage.The upgrade will ensure that the HVAC/BAS system continues to receive updates,is vendor supported,and continues to be o•erational. History and Current Status This project first appeared in the FY21-22 CIP. Funding in the amount of$2,070,000 was placed in CIP N 100225 Judicial Center Maintenance,in FY 2026-27.As the current DDC system software ceased being supported by the vendor in July 2021,waiting until FY 2026-27 to execute this work would be problematic. Operating Budget Impact Comments This project will have no operating budget impacts. FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Operating Budget Impacts - - - - - - Total FTE - - - - - - Project Map Schedule of Activities Project Activities From-To Amount Design 12/21-06/22 200,000 Construction 06/22-05/23 1,200,000 FF&E 01/23-05/23 400,000 Contingency 12/21-05/23 270,000 2,070,000 Total Budgetary Cost Estimate: Amount 2,070,000 Meats of Anarcitg Funding Subclass Federal-American Rescue Plan Act Total Funding: 2,070,000 Fiscal Years FY22 through FY27 Capital Improvement Program Project:PG 100591 'Title:Parks and Rec Construction Yard Relocation-ARPA Status:Proposed(ARPA) Category:Buildings and Assets Department:Parks and Recreation Project Type Project Location Project Type:Rehabilitation/Replacement District:Princess Anne Programmed Funding Programmed Appropriated Funding FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 9,420,098 9,420,098 - - - - - Description and Scope The project will construct an approximately 12,000 square-foot building to house the Parks and Recreation,Landscape Maintenance staff.The building includes assembly areas, locker rooms,a welding shop,and warehouse and storage requirements necessary to meet the needs of this work unit.The construction yard will be located adjacent to the Parks and Recreation Landscape Services facility on Dam Neck Road. Purpose and Need The current facility is located on a former U.S.Military Nike missile site parcel.The parcel still has many of the base's former components such as missile silos,bunkers,and barracks, which were constructed in the 1940s.The existing buildings have outlived their useful life.Further,the facility needs to be expanded to meet the Parks and Recreation Department's current mission and responsibilities.The current site use is industrial;however,the yard is now surrounded by residential neighborhoods and is not a compatible use given this residential development.Therefore,movement of the facility is the best option. History and Current Status This project was first requested in the FY 2010-11 CIP as a project to relocate/consolidate both the Landscape Yard facility and the Citywide Administration facility located at the same site.Since that time,a project has been completed to relocate the Citywide Administration facility,leaving the need to relocate or replace the Landscape Yard facility. A stand alone CIP for this project has appeared on the Requested but Not Funded list for multiple years.This facility was on the original Top 13 facilities projects and remains on this list due to the poor conditions of the structures and the need to relocate the industrial operation out of a residential area and to provide structures and facilities.The new facility will be desi_ned to meet the current mission of this work unit. Operating Budget Impact Comments There will be no operating budget impact. FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Operating Budget Impacts - - - - - - TotaIFTE - - - - - - Project Map Schedule of Activities Project Activities From-To Amount Design 12/21-12/22 713,644 FF&E 04/23-05/25 713,644 Construction 04/23-03/25 7,136,437 Contingency 12/21-05/25 856,373 9,420,098 Total Budgetary Cost Estimate: Amount 9,420,098 Means of Financing Funding Subclass Federal-American Rescue Plan Act Total Funding: 9,420,098 Fiscal Years FY22 through FY27 Capital Improvement Program Project:PG 100594 trifle:Library Meeting Rooms Technology Modernization-ARPA Status:Proposed(ARPA) Category:Information Technology Department:Library/IT Project Type Project Location Project Type:Repair and Renovations District:Various(Branch Libraries) Programmed Funding Programmed Appropriated Funding FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 0 743,000 - - - - - Description and Scope This project will provide the Virginia Beach Public Libraries(VBPL)with modern technology solutions for its library meeting spaces.Equipment is be provided for collaborative spaces such as public computer labs,mobile classroom equipment,standard meeting spaces,study spaces,and huddle rooms. Capabilities will include:video conferencing,presentation equipment,AV equipment,assistive technology,computers,software,required ports and connections for bring your own device opportunities,control systems,cabinets and racks, and extended support and warranties,as needed.Standard equipment will be installed to allow for a common user experience across facilities and to simplify maintenance and equipment lifecycle management.The branches included in this project are Bayside,Great Neck,Kempsville,Oceanfront,Princess Anne,Pungo and Windsor Woods.Each branch has specific needs as the meeting spaces and use vary at each location.The spaces include collaboration rooms,large and small labs,"pop-up"rooms,standard rooms,study and huddle rooms and kiosk spaces.These enhanced capabilities would allow remote participation in VBPL programs and activities from the safety of patron's homes and other remote Purpose and Need The VBPL collectively house approximately 30 meeting spaces over eight branch locations.These spaces are used for meetings,children's programs,studying,entertainment and computer learning.At present,these spaces are no longer designed or equipped for that purpose due to antiquated technology or the complete absence of technology.As a result, the VBPL has taken the initiative to improve services offered to the community in conjunction with a work from home,virtual meeting,and distance learning world.Through this project,the VBPL would provide the public access to enhanced technology within the meeting spaces that create collaborative and innovative opportunities that"inspire wonder and create success." History and Current Status Previous to ARPA,libraries did not have a funding mechanism for equipment replacement and upgrades. CIP project#100569,"Libraries Meeting Space Technology Modernization,"provided funds only for Central Library. Operating Budget Impact Comments There is an estimated 40,000 of annual operating expenses expected to be needed starting in FY 2024-25. FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Operating Budget Impacts - - - 40,000 40,000 40,000 Total FTE - - - - - - Project Map Schedule of Activities Project Activities From-To Amount Planning 11/21-1/22 Design 2/22-7/22 371,500 Installation 8/22-10/22 _ 371,500 743,000 Estimate: Amount Mears of Emoting Funding Subclass Federal-American 743,000 Rescue Plan Act Total Funding: 743,000 L. PLANNING 1. MURPHY'S OF VIRGINIA BEACH / STEPHEN YUEN YEE FAMILY, LLC for a Special Exception for Alternative Compliance re convert a portion of parking lot into permanent outdoor space dining area and space for new uses at 2914 Pacific Avenue DISTRICT 6—BEACH RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 2. VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/ VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & FROB, LLC for a Modification of Proffers to a Conditional Change of Zoning update Design Criteria re portion of Corporate Landing Business Park DISTRICT 7—PRINCESS ANNE (Deferred from September 21, 2021) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 3. JTR, LLC / JTR, LLC / BAYLINER BUILDING, LLC & SHORE DRIVE AREA PROPERTIES for Street Closures of partially improved and unimproved portions of right- of-way known as Clipper Bay Drive (approximately 26,414 square feet) and Ocean Tides Drive(approximately 12,252 square feet)DISTRICT 4—BAYSIDE RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL APPLICANT REQUEST DEFERRAL TO DECEMBER 7,2021 4. MP SHORE DRIVE,LLC/JTR,LLC,BAYLINER BUILDING,LLC, SHORE DRIVE AREA PROPERTIES, LLC, & CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH for a Conditional Change of Zoning from PD-H 1 and B-2 Districts to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use and Conditional Use Permit re multi-family dwellings at 3829 & 3785 Shore Drive and adjacent parcels between Marlin Bay Drive and 3829 Shore Drive DISTRICT 4—BAYSIDE RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL APPLICANT REQUEST DEFERRAL TO DECEMBER 7,2021 us f ,..,.. & s 8 cs i „, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING A Public Hearing of the Virginia Beach City Council will be held on Tuesday,October 19,2021 at 6:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at City Hall,Building 1,2nd Floor at 2401 Courthouse Drive,Virginia Beach,VA 23456.Members of the public will be able to observe the City Council meeting through livestreaming on www.vbgov.com, broadcast on VBTV,and via WebEx.Citizens who wish to speak can sign up to speak either in-person at the Council Chamber or virtually via WebEx by completing the two-step process below.All interested parties are invited to observe. If you wish to make comments virtually during the public hearing,please follow the two-step process provided below: 1. Register for the WebEx at nttos//vbeov-webex com/vbenv/nnctapf/v nhn2MTlf)=e79609978b16'R pr,40176f6R957ddch71 2. Register with the City Clerk's Office by calling 757-385-4303 prior to 5:00 p.m.on October 19,2021. The following requests are scheduled to be heard: Murphy's of Virginia Beach(Applicant)Stephen Yuen Yee Family,LLC(Property Owner) Alternative Compliance Address: 2914 Pacific Avenue GPIN(s): 2428013605 Council District Beach Virginia Beach Development Authority (Applicant) Virginia Beach Development Authority&FROB,LLC(Property Owners)Modification of Proffers Address:Portion of Corporate Landing Business Park GPIN(s): 2415122650, 2415040770, 2415146859,2415259170,2415227788 Council District Princess Anne JTR,LLC(Applicant)JTR,LLC;Bayliner Building,LLC;&Shore Drive Area Properties 1 (Property Owners)Street Closures Adjacent Address:Portion of Ocean Tides Drive, south of Shore Drive and north of Clipper Bay Drive,and a portion of Clipper Bay I Drive right-of-way south of Shore Drive and west of Ocean Tides Drive Adjacent GPIN(s): 1489289631, 1489286485, 1489382674, 1489289308 Council District Bayside MP Shore, LLC (Applicant)JTR, LLC; Bayliner Building, LLC; Shore Drive Area Properties,LLC;&City of Virginia Beach(Property Owners)Conditional Change of Zoning(B-2 and PO-H1 Districts to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District)Conditional Use Permit (Multi-Family Dwellings) Addresses: 3829 & 3785 Shore Drive, adjacent parcel between Marlin Bay Drive and 3829 Shore Drive GPIN(s): 1489286485,1489288247,1489289308,1489289631,1489382674 Council District Bayside Copies of the proposed plans,ordinances,amendments and/or resolutions are on file and may be examined by appointment in the Planning Department at 2875 Sabre St, Suite 500, Virginia Beach, VA 23452 or online at www.vbgov.com/pc. For information call 757-385-4621. Staff Reports will be available on the webpage 5 days prior to the meeting. If you require a reasonable accommodation for this meeting due to a disability, please call the City Clerk's Office at 757-385-4303.If you are hearing impaired, you can contact Virginia Relay at 711 for TDD service. The meeting will be broadcast on cable TV,www.vbgov.com and Facebook Live. Please check our website at www.vbgov.com/government/departments/city- clerk/city-council for the most updated meeting information. All interested parties are invited to participate. Amanda Barnes City Clerk BEACON-OCTOBER 3&10,2021-1 TIME EACH I. - TF304 \ OR .........„----- ____ _....iiii 001111•0". ilkil, 'Ili \ OR � Roa 2 R ! sk!-- �,�� OR Qo OR o 0 Stree;lo , N 'R 3ph- !.. e 7 '0 4 , ORno\v < 30' hs- 7, „..., AIT__-----\ - \ 1"1"-- \ t c° OR Ili ' TlcStr-ee OR o �', �-. _ , gtel\ OR �1 ,y \ c'\IA.-. ORS �,71 , ORit G _- w ( ts 10 0 C). s — hiOR, = ____ 131 \ I / OR 2gh- \ g tSO R d34) ° ,_ OR 1110 Ay , -\O R; \ OR • • J OR N VA Site �, ���� e Murphy's of Virginia Beach W Property Polygons 2914 Pacific Avenue S Zoning Building - imi Feet 0 30 60 120 180 240 300 360 / \!1U' 4 ;a,0 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM J ITEM: MURPHY'S OF VIRGINIA BEACH [Applicant] STEPHEN YUEN YEE FAMILY, LLC [Property Owner] Special Exception for Alternative Compliance (Recurring Outdoor Events) for the property located at 2914 Pacific Avenue (GPIN 2428013605). COUNCIL DISTRICT — BEACH MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 ■ Background: In 2020, Murphy's of Virginia Beach (Murphy's) converted a portion of the parking lot into a temporary outdoor dining area due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Now, the restaurant proposes to convert a portion of the parking lot into a permanent outdoor dining area with new proposed uses such as yard games, music, and a stage to host outdoor events on the property. The applicant received a building permit to construct the dining area on July 22, 2021 . However, they require Alternative Compliance to incorporate recurring outdoor events on the site. The applicant proposes to host a variety of additional unique, temporary but often recurring events. The outdoor space will also include outdoor dining, yard games, fundraisers for local nonprofit organizations as well as a 200 square foot stage for live music, movie nights, and sporting event watch parties. Individually, these uses could be considered accessory to the primary indoor eating and drinking establishment. However, considered together, the expanded size and frequency of events is beyond what can be considered accessory, and require an Alternative Compliance application to proceed. The outdoor area will be enclosed with an iron and stone railing to match the materials used for the existing outdoor seating area on the site. • Considerations: Construction of an open space with outdoor seating, yard games, and a performance stage can help activate the street, and the proposed landscaping improvements support the priorities of beautification, placemaking, and creation of a sense of arrival and welcome to the Resort Area. The following measures have been proposed to dampen noise that could be generated by the outdoor activities onsite. The performance area with a stage will be moved from its current location facing the apartment and townhouse residences on 30th Street and face southeast towards the Boardwalk, away from these residences. Additionally, the applicant proposes to enclose the stage with a permanent eight-foot tall wall that is to be soundproofed with acoustic foam paneling, at a location that will not block sightlines for pedestrians or vehicles entering and exiting the site. The unique Murphy's of Virginia Beach Page 2 of 3 activities proposed at Murphy's (live music, movie screenings, non-profit events, sporting events) along with its location in the Laskin Gateway area lends to the creation of a memorable and successful place, even during the off-season, supporting the goal to be a year-round destination. To ensure that the residential uses to the west of the property are not negatively affected by the new activities onsite, the Planning Commission recommended approval but subject to an additional condition (Condition 10) that limits the number of special events on the site to 15 per year. The additional condition is indicated by underlined text noted below. At the City Council Workshop on September 28, 2021, Council requested information regarding the soundproofing materials for the proposed stage walls. The proposed walls are eight (8) inches thick and filled with grout, providing a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 55, which blocks approximately 55 decibels from transmitting through the partition and reduces sound by more than 78%. A reinforced sound barrier with an additional STC rating of 26 will also be applied interior to the eight-inch walls. The technical data sheet and charts indicating the estimated STC Ratings and sound reduction for the proposed walls are attached. Further details pertaining to the application, as well as Staff's evaluation, are provided in the attached Staff Report. Staff received six letters of support from surrounding properties owners for this request. Two speakers were present in opposition at the Planning Commission public hearing. The first speaker represented the owner of an adjacent apartment complex and noted concerns about the potential for excessive noise being generated by the proposed activities. The second speaker was the owner of the apartments and indicated that from time-to-time he has received noise complaints from his tenants. Despite this, the Planning Commission voted 10-0 to recommend approval recommending condition ten listed below to limit the number of outdoor events per year to 15. • Recommendation: On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of this request by a vote of 10-0. 1. All new, permanent structures shall substantially conform to the renderings depicted in "Murphy' Outdoor Exhibit," dated August 27, 2021, by WPL, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. No amplified music shall be permitted outdoors between the hours of 11 :00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. 3. The operation shall not disturb the tranquility of residential areas or other areas in close proximity or otherwise interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring property by reason of excessive noise, traffic, lighting, or overflow parking. Murphy's of Virginia Beach Page 3 of 3 4. The height of the stage walls shall not exceed eight (8) feet and shall be soundproofed with acoustic foam paneling. 5. A parking validation agreement for at least eight (13) parking spaces shall be maintained at the 31st Street Parking Garage with Republic Parking System or in a location as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 6. An off-site parking agreement for at least fifteen (15) parking spaces shall be maintained at the "Parking Parcel" indicated in the attached agreement. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining this agreement, or provide 15 parking spaces in another location as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 7. A minimum of 10 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on site. 8. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the renderings depicted in the "Murphy's Outdoor Dining Landscape Plan," dated August 6, 2021, by Winn, Winn &Associates, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 9. Four (4) replacement London Plane trees or large street trees of a species acceptable to the DSC Landscape Architect shall be planted in the verge between the sidewalk and 30th Street. The trees shall be placed in conformance with the "Planting Plan, 30th Street," dated December 14, 2005 by WPL, which is on file with the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works and Engineering Division and is shown on page 16 of this report. The trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2 1/2" at breast height at the time of planting. 10.The maximum number of special events permitted on site each year shall be 15. • Attachments: Staff Report and Disclosure Statements Location Map Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Letters of Support (6) Estimated STC Ratings for CMU Walls STC Sound Reduction Chart Technical Data Sheet for AudioSeal Reinforced Sound Barrier Recommended Action: Staff recommends Approval. Planning Commission recommends Approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department / City Manager: i,/f Applicant Murphy's of Virginia Beach, Murphy's Irish Pub Agenda Item Property Owner Stephen Yuen Yee Family, LLC Planning Commission Public Hearing September 8, 2021 City Council Election District Beach Virginia Beach Request Alternative Compliance (Recurring Outdoor Events) Staff Recommendation I. c4 Z 15th N°" Approval 0 . 'St" „ ° 90 s Staff Planner ek. 3yd; a of Hank Morrison 3204 S ►�� i * — 4 Location L'" '�� 1 .1 2914 Pacific Avenue 4 t -9"1"4.1 eY GPIN a alp0 2428013605 \ `+i A `"O"e4 b tee Site Size 26,884 square feet r r 26tn sl 2�th Ng115vs AICUZ 2Sth St1e.� or26th Nat:Stree 2,0 Wee1 65-70 dB DNL11111......i„ St''''. 0 .' 24th 5 Watershed Chesapeake Bay Existing Land Use and Zoning District ' p t ,` Eating and drinking establishment/OR 1 '` ; -' Oceanfront Resort ,0 1 :�"' ' a te` : V A Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts ,,,:t . `.��1 ; `- t _ "�_ II North � y1 v.q `a'.-�m Sttect at 30th Street , r , ;; " Eating and drinking establishment /OR ` °, ' \ • -r • -;t i Oceanfront Resort 4`^ - ' South vil, . , , , ro ,f'_ �., . Commercial parking lot, single family dwelling/ ^ :, •4, st �1� W. OR Oceanfront Resort .r 29_ , E ,� �` ' '- ;� East r . _' y Pacific Avenue 04-`, , '= 1 y'4 ! i 1 1,1 Commercial parking lot/OR Oceanfront Resort i ",_ _. ' West Retail,townhouses/OR Oceanfront Resort Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 1 Background & Summary of Proposal • This subject property is home to Murphy's Irish Pub(Murphy's), a restaurant at the oceanfront in the resort area providing dining and outdoor entertainment. In 2020, like many restaurants, Murphy's converted a portion of the parking lot into a temporary outdoor dining area due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Now, the restaurant is converting a portion of the parking lot into a permanent outdoor dining area, with new proposed uses such as yard games, music, and a stage to host outdoor events on the property. The applicant received a building permit to construct the dining area on July 22, 2021. However,they require Alternative Compliance to incorporate recurring outdoor events on the site. Uses • In addition to the outdoor music that occurs at Murphy's,the applicant proposes to host a variety of additional unique,temporary but often recurring events, such as movie nights, sporting event watch parties,yard games, and fundraisers for local nonprofit organizations. Individually, these uses could be considered accessory to the primary indoor eating and drinking establishment. However, considered together,the expanded size and frequency of events is beyond what can be considered accessory, and require an Alternative Compliance application to proceed. Structures and Site Layout • The outdoor area will be enclosed with an iron and stone railing to match the materials used for the existing outdoor seating area on the site. The new outdoor space will include outdoor dining and yard games, as well as a 200 square foot stage for live music, movie screenings, sporting events, and nonprofit events. • The following measures have been proposed to dampen noise that could be generated by the outdoor activities onsite:the performance area will be moved from its current location facing the apartment and townhouse residences on 30th Street. The new stage will be facing southeast, away from the apartment and townhouse residences on 30th Street,toward the boardwalk. Additionally,the applicant proposes to enclose the stage with a permanent eight-foot tall wall that is to be soundproofed with acoustic foam paneling, at a location that will not block sightlines for pedestrians or vehicles entering and exiting the site. • New trees and shrubs are planned to be installed interior to the site, and four new street trees will be installed along 30th Street,which will aid in upgrading the aesthetics of the property Parking • Utilizing a combination of on-site and off-site parking, a common practice in the Oceanfront Resort district, the applicant meets the required number of 61 parking spaces mandated by the Zoning Ordinance. • To develop the site as proposed, eight (8) parking spaces would be removed, leaving 33 on-site spaces available for patrons. • To meet the remaining parking requirement,the applicant has entered into a five-year off-site parking agreement for 15 parking spaces in the adjacent lot to the west.This agreement will need to be updated for continued compliance,or the applicant will be required to provide 15 spaces at a different location approved by the Zoning Administrator. • Additionally,the applicant has an active monthly Parking Validation Agreement for 13 overflow spaces inside the 31st Street Parking Garage, for a total of 61 parking spaces. • According to Traffic Engineering,the new outdoor area is not likely to generate a significant amount of increased traffic. Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 2 v . a \ — \ ' :c-------i;------\ °' : Zoning History 'DC �, '� # Request "°tmet 1 ALT(Alternative Compliance)Approved 05/18/2018 j' �` 2 ALT(Alternative Compliance)Approved 06/20/2017 e .i ,_ I1 3 CRZ(RT-3.A-36,A-12 to Conditional RT-3)Approved iii�� t,, 05/09/2006 1 < a \ ..L.,\i --------- _ +71n+ 5 --- Application Types CUP—Conditional Use Permit MOD—Modification of Conditions or Proffers FVR—Floodplain Variance LUP—Land Use Plan REZ—Rezoning NON—Nonconforming Use ALT—Alternative Compliance STR—Short Term Rental CRZ—Conditional Rezoning STC—Street Closure SVR—Subdivision Variance Evaluation & Recommendation The Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code (ORD FBC) provides flexibility through the Alternative Compliance process to accommodate unique uses and development forms that contribute to the character and ambiance envisioned in the Resort Area Strategic Action Plan (RASAP 2030) but do not follow the "prescribed form" as written. Section 7.3.3 of the FBC provides the 'Review Standards'for these applications, noting that the City Council "shall consider the extent to which the proposed development,taken as a whole," satisfies these standards. Each of these standards is listed below, with a Staff comment pertaining to the degree to which the proposal meets each. Advances the stated goals and objectives of the Resort Area Strategic Action Plan and this Code, and specifically,the extent to which the proposed development: • Promotes modes of transportation other than the automobile, including walking and transit.Staff Comments: The site is located on southwest corner of 30`h Street and Pacific Avenue, both of which are designated as "Gateway"streets by the Form-Based Code. While there is a higher volume of traffic on these streets, the area still offers accommodations for pedestrians. The proximity to the Boardwalk, along with the new amenities proposed on this site promote alternative forms of transportation like walking, biking, or use of other micro mobility devices. • Creates a built environment that is in scale with pedestrian-oriented activities and provides visual interest and orientation for pedestrians.Staff Comments: The open layout of the site provides visibility to the activities on the site to add interest without overwhelming the public realm. Construction of an open space with outdoor seating, yard games, and a performance stage can help activate the street, and the proposed landscaping improvements supports the priorities of beautification, placemaking, and creation of sense of arrival and welcome to the Resort Area. • Contributes to a mix of uses in the area that are compatible with each other and work together to create a memorable and successful place.Staff Comments: The unique activities proposed at Murphy's(live music, movie screenings, non-profit events, sporting events)along with its location in the Laskin Gateway area lends to the Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 3 creation of a memorable and successful place, even during the off-season,supporting the goal to be a year-round destination. • Is consistent with the intent of the regulations applicable to the street frontage in which it is located,as set forth in Sec. 2.1 of this code.Staff Comments:Appropriately, the outdoor seating area is located along 30th Street, a Gateway frontage street type. To accommodate the pedestrian nature of this street frontage, there will be two new access points to the restaurant—one from the 30th Street sidewalk and a second facing the parking area. • Is physically and functionally integrated with the built environment in which it is located.Staff Comments:The uses and structures on the site are well-suited in the Resort District. • Advances the goals and objectives of the parking strategy for the District.Staff Comments:As stated above, the outdoor nature of the proposed activities at Murphy's promote walking and biking. While eight on-site parking spaces will be removed to develop this area, the establishment will maintain the same total number of parking spaces with an Off-Site Parking Agreement and a Parking Validation Agreement in the 315C Street Garage.A copy of the agreements are shown on page 10 of this Staff report. Furthermore, as only eight new dining tables are proposed staff does not believe the proposed additional seating would translate into the need for additional parking spaces.Any additional new trips are likely outside the hours of the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. • The City Council shall also consider the potential impacts of the proposed deviation on surrounding properties and the extent to which any adverse impacts from such deviation can be mitigated.Staff Comments: There is potential for noise to be generated by the outdoor activity at Murphy's. This is appropriate for the Oceanfront Resort Area;however, due to the residences to the west of the site, a condition is recommended to prohibit amplified music after 11:00 p.m. The proposed stage will be placed facing southeast, away from the residential uses on 30th Street, and eight foot tall acoustic paneling will be installed around the stage to absorb and dampen noise. Staff is supportive of the proposal as it will activate and beautify the street while maintaining compatibility with the established character of the Oceanfront Resort Area. Based on the conclusion that the proposed uses and associated structures satisfy the standards above to the greatest extent possible,Staff recommends approval of this Special Exception for Alternative Compliance to the Form-Based Code,subject to the conditions below. Recommended Conditions 1. All new, permanent structures shall substantially conform to the renderings depicted in "Murphy' Outdoor Exhibit," dated August 27,2021, by WPL,which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. No amplified music shall be permitted outdoors between the hours of 11:00 p.m.and 10:00 a.m. 3. The operation shall not disturb the tranquility of residential areas or other areas in close proximity or otherwise interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring property by reason of excessive noise,traffic, lighting,or overflow parking. 4. The height of the stage walls shall not exceed eight (8)feet and shall be soundproofed with acoustic foam paneling. 5. A parking validation agreement for at least eight(13) parking spaces shall be maintained at the 31st Street Parking Garage with Republic Parking System or in a location as approved by the Zoning Administrator. Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 4 6. An off-site parking agreement for at least fifteen (15) parking spaces shall be maintained at the"Parking Parcel" indicated in the attached agreement.The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining this agreement,or provide 15 parking spaces in another location as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 7. A minimum of 10 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on site. 8. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the renderings depicted in the"Murphy's Outdoor Dining Landscape Plan,"dated August 6,2021, by Winn,Winn&Associates,which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 9. Four(4) replacement London Plane trees or large street trees of a species acceptable to the DSC Landscape Architect shall be planted in the verge between the sidewalk and 30th Street.The trees shall be placed in conformance with the"Planting Plan,30th Street,"dated December 14,2005 by WPL,which is on file with the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works and Engineering Division and is shown on page 16 of this report.The trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2'A"at breast height at the time of planting. 10.The maximum number of special events permitted on site each year shall be 15. 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 approvals allowed by this application 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. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The subject property is located within the Resort Strategic Growth Area (SGA),which the Comprehensive Plan designates as one of the eight urban areas in the City that envisions a vertical mix of urban uses, urban streetscapes, pedestrian connectivity, mobility and transit alternatives,urban gathering places, land use patterns that foster economic growth through efficient use and reuse of land, neighborhood protection, "green" building and infrastructure opportunities, and a variety of civic,commercial,artistic, and ethnically diverse areas. The Resort Area Strategic Action Plan (RASAP)2030 serves as the master plan for the Resort SGA, and it identifies four sub-districts for their own distinct characteristics and are key to diversifying the Resort Area.The subject area is located within the Laskin Gateway district,which is a key connection point for North End businesses and neighborhoods and the Hilltop commercial area to the west.The RASAP 2030 set priorities for adopting best practices for beautification, placemaking,wayfinding,events and programming, incentive programs, and infrastructure improvements.The Plan also prioritizes the need to create a sense of arrival and welcome into the Resort Area and the need to achieve the goal of a year-round resort. The request for alternative compliance to construct an open space with outdoor seating, yard games,and performance stage can provide street activation, as well as facade and street improvements that supports in achieving the priorities of beautification, placemaking, and creation of sense of arrival and welcome to the Resort Area. Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 5 Natural & Cultural Resources Impacts The site is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There does not appear to be any significant natural or cultural resources associated with the site. Traffic Impacts Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Pacific Avenue 21,400 ADT1 25,100 ADT (LOS 3"D") Proposed Land Use: No change anticipated 30th Street 4,200 ADT1 16,350 ADT (LOS 3"D") 3 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by a 4,463 sf 3 LOS=Level of Service restaurant Public Utility Impacts Water The site currently connects to City water.The existing 5/8" domestic meter may be used or upgraded to accommodate the proposed development. If a plumbing permit is required,the water meter size will be evaluated by Public Utilities prior to the permit issuance. Depending on the number/type of fixtures existing and proposed,the water meter and water service line may need to be upgraded by the property owner. Sewer The site currently connects to City water. Public Outreach Information Planning Commission • As required by the Zoning Ordinance,the public notice sign(s)was placed on the property on August 9, 2021. • As required by State Code,this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot Beacon on Sundays, August 22, 2021 and August 29, 2021. • As required by City Code,the adjacent property owners were notified regarding the request and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on August 23, 2021. • This Staff report, as well as all reports for this Planning Commission's meeting, was posted on the Commission's webpage of www.vbgov.com/pc on September 2, 2021. City Council • As required by City Code,this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot Beacon on Sundays, October 3, 2021 and October 10, 2021. Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 6 • As required by City Code,the adjacent property owners were notified regarding both the request and the date of the City Council's public hearing on October 4, 2021 • The City Clerk's Office posted the materials associated with the application on the City Council website of https://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/city-clerk/city-council/Documents/BookmarkedAgenda.pdf on October 15, 2021. Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 7 Proposed Site Layout - .----- ( _.--- c); I a El El _.. , •,••„, •,•. ..•,...,-.,... .•.„..Ai-•":"- •0, ' •.'1: •.1 •. 'a. •. .a. • 'a. •010•••• . #.. 1 't " irri n :11:, Efl •• .IP .• Pf:'. •: ° ' . f s.sr• *O. f'' 1 r:::-.9 , I ..-p•0 4*- __. •••.. e ; ,--- - , F I ' •- , /_ .) *0 OE 1 I I . ' tkla, ---• .,.-- _au.03,110311t 44006C004 flirg)VCON. . _ - _ : 0 ,54400110:004. • :.----; r - • _i • 1 C.10 Fl I I! 1 . 1 I 1 r. .., 1 ), Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 8 Proposed Elevations and Materials C ICOC'S UM:41.0 511012:oh .i., V N VA'4Jeag e!ulailA E.'0 a 1N3WNIVIA131N3 2iooai o S,AHdbillN • (ram` (� ) 44 o 4Q+ O 0' W pa. a ll.l �' ill z 0'L Q I O 0 ao sl Cl n h Illv 11 , a / 9 { • — , nit:_;;.., Q - - - > • r ` LLJ - - - - lD Q z -J 0 f— 4 Q w -'-- W U J z ix CD ..... LL W Ii — I- 0 Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 9 00Irti - r13 ZrQ ,' 4 Y� dezi •n ,v w r!rr w w y''. 0 6' 3 CL 11. 6., �,-y * . ., ONLINE FENCE SUPPLY STYLE -1J B, ALUMINUM, COLOR BLACK 0 �I i • UJ �. !! 2 LITTLE GEM MAGNOLIA (ON SIDE Of HOLLYWOOD JUNIPERS Z STAGE TO HELP PROJECT SOUND EAST) M — I w4 CC r _ REfERNCE IMAGE: SEE ACTUAL Z ,�, POST MATERIAL BELOW Z r4 eL ` y" W fr ari �` N s i i ,v�` 8 , t G R + - -- c 1/1 r--�- v m WAX MYRTLE CHINUO VIBURNUM ur I -- = It g O. y s c .- VEGETATION TO HELP WITH SOUND �" D E. CULTURED STONE. PRO-FIT 2 5 a LEDGSTONE, COLOR. SHALE E C OUTDOOR PERIMETER RAILING, POSTS & VEGETATION D Do < v =. I v r. E. °' fD CA aa rro 3 m of I-, F--‘ f1 0 I S Survey r- M1W NZ � o ySlA � ^1gy s ,, :tiW a . ° 6ai :, 11!:4� � ., '. 3 yP� RnZY6 I, cv bi og o ( J .M?i�I�MOM a g 1 a r r . ..—r-- - - t �r (tor K.�ar•v*Iru 'n` 4' a774f�i!Y.'X# Yd i R b e d l I ¢ c ; ' i I r O fF v f,( hIr 1' s g' 5i 1 4 r / E i ad 4 g ' ► _ , �'le ' Ili a ; # - `••s. a p S fi 4. Nab Ng °IE a �� —x s '` Fit ciotsgm11/J o —mzWOF � - -- t- � ri xo � `1 r `, --M :li !' ii 6 o� R 1EE I_ iccIa>-11 if / Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 11 Off-Site Parking Agreement GPIN: 24280126570000(Restaurant Parcel) GPIN:24280116220000(Parking Parcel) EXTENSION TO OFF-SITE PARKING AGREEMENT This Extension of Off-Site Parking Agreement,dated this 1st day of March,2021. is by and between Stephen Yuen Yee Family LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (herein referred to as"Parking Parcel Owner)[indexed as Grantor), and Stephen Yuen Yee Family LLC. a Virginia limited liability company herein referred to as'Restaurant Parcel Owner')[indexed as Grantee). Recitals A. Restaurant Parcel Owner is the owner of that certain parcel of land, with the improvements thereon located at the southwest intersection of Pacific Avenue and 30th Street in the City;;i Virginia Beach end known by brief legal description as"Lots 29. 30, 31 & 25, 26, 27 & 28, Block 99" (GPIN: 24280126570000) and hereinafter referred to as the"Restaurant Parcel.- B. Parking Parcel Owner is the nwner of that certain parcel of land.with the improvements thereon, located on the south side of 30th Street between Pacific Avenue and Arctic Avenue!n the City of Virginia Beach and known by brief legal description as 'the western 10 feet of Lot 33. all of lot 34. and the eastern 20 feet of Lot 35. Block 99" (24280116220000)and hereinafter referred to as the"Parking Parcel." C. Parking Parcel Owner and Restaurant Parcel Owner entered into an Off-Site Parking Agreement dated February 8, 2016 for an initial term of Five (5) Years (the `Term'), commencing March 1 2016,which agreement was duly notarized,endorsed by the City and recorded with the Circuit Court Clerk's Office, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. D. Restaurant Parcel Owner had requested Parking Parcel Owner to permit Restaurant Parcel Owner its lessees and assigns to continue to use as a remote facility for off-site parking,in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 a portion of the Parking Parcel and Parking Parcel Owner had consented to such use and the parties, by execution of the original Off-Site Parking Agreement. desires to memorialize t terms of that permitted use Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda item 11 Page 12 Off-Site Parking Agreement F. Restaurant Parcel Owner and Parking Parcel Owner hereby desire to extend such Off-Site Parking Agreement for an additional term of Five (5) Years commencing March 1, 2021 (the "Extension Term'), with all provisions contained therein hereby ratified and affirmed Agreement Now,therefore,for and in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained.the parties:each intending to be legally bound,agree as follows 1 Parking Parcel Owner continues to grant to Restaurant Parcel Owner and Restaurant Parcel Owner accepts the grant from Parking Parcel Owner of the continued right to use a portion of the Parking Parcel for the sole and exclusive purpose of providing for off site parking from the Restaurant Parcel for ten(10) vehicles,with the addition, beginning March 1,2021,of off-site parking for five(5) additional vehicles(the"Parking Spaces")for a total of 15 Parking Spaces. 2 This Extension to Off-Site Parking Agreement shall be for an extended term of Five (5)Years(the"Extension Term"), commencing March 1.2021 3. If the existence of any of the required parking spaces is not maintained or other parking spaces acceptable to the Director of the Department of Planning & Community Development of the City (the`Planning Director') substituted. the use or portion of the use of the property as is deficient in number of required parking spaces shall be discontinued until such time as replacement parking spaces satisfying the parking requirements under the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Restaurant Parcel Owner shall use and occupy the Parking Parcel in full compliance with the provisions of the City Code and accepts full responsibility for compliance therewith 6. The parties agree to execute such other documents as may be required or appropriate to evidence the grant of use of the Parking Spaces SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 13 Off-Site Parking Agreement SIGNATURE PAGE FXTENSION TO OFF SITE PARKING AGREEMENT In Witness Whereof,the parties hereto have caused this Off Site Parking Agreement to he executed as of the date set forth above Restaurant Parcel Owner Stephen Yuen Yee Family LLC, y7 � Stephanie Kim Yee. Managing Member Parking Parcel Owner Stephen Yuen Yee Famity LLC, Stephanie Kim Yee. Managing Member Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 14 Parking Validation Agreement 209 30th Street REPUBLIC Virginia Beach.VA 2345' PARKING 7S7-d2$2072 VALIDATION ACCOUNT AGREEMENT +if UlJESTED V', 10.A7 Murphy's Irish Pub April 29,2021 LOCArion shuit.GER 209 30th Street(31st St Garage) Mia Drummond Cis, S1ATE Lv '`ELEFN7Nr Virginia Beach IVA 23451 757.428-2072 Validation Agreement By submittal of this form the party below requests the set up of a charged validat.oe account with Republic Parking System. If accepted,we authorize Republic Parking System to accept all validated machine-issued tickets from our customers as payment of parking charges. We agree to be responsible for reimbursement to Republic Parking System of all parking validation charges created with our validation portal. Republic Parking System will invoice us by the Sth day of every month for all charges incurred for the previous month. We agree to reimburse Republic Parking System within 10 days from receipt of the invoice. All balances over 30 days will accrue interest at ten percent(10°k) annually. Terms.This agreement shall commence on the date above and shall continue thereafter from month to month unless either party gives a 30 day written notice of non-renewal.Republic Parking may terminate this agreement immediate upon written notice to the tenant in the event that(i)tenant breaches any provision of the agreement. (ii)The owner of the facility request the agreement to be terminated regardless of reason.Oil)Republics underlying Rates.The validated parking rates to be charged to the tenant during this agreement will be the same daily parking rates charged to the general public at the facility,as may be changed from time to time without tenant approval.Murphy's Irish Pub has agreed to pay up to 2 hours for patrons with Murphy's validated coupon.The patron will be responsible for the remaining fee. We understand that Republic Parking System will provide sufficient details necessary to ensure we are paying for our validations only,and we further understand that it is necessary to return any and all original validation coupons to Republic Parking for audit purposes,once we have verified the billing information is correct. Validator Detail OOMPAr.r ALIT itORIZED REPRtSEKTA1iVE 3t7LE Murphy's Irish Pub 2914 Ann Mooney Owner Pacific Avenue CIT. STATE ZIP TELEPtici'.i Emu Virginia Bead'VA 23451 202-460.9205 tontmygtliartio cgm Sr;r.c �.E DATE ) C April 29,2021 C Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 15 Planting Plan mu ry X[t w me fJHO I w "3,s?'^ [_ vq ';'I b i 92170511 3 OUR'NM r43, ioodjto ;+� NV1d 3dVOSONV1 I i , , Ci I < s► 1 O:I_ o, • CI)II MOMS i tt ;mtt y F t- fix -, fgl!'i I 2i e_ l6 S _~ 6si sP 'y a ?e - yy > �3 � s r• p9 E elleop aA ir- Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 16 30th Street Planting Plan reLi ....J. ',... im„) It' , z 1 ig :El 1 s i k_ J lil t is I IV li _ I ‘ i t 1 , 4 A,f.t. _ . .., , , ii 1 '1 " ' .. . Eo I -----f 0~ _a f: t` _-- LL NJ Ailim D II t i I.iri i * I 0 � ` 14 _ \ I1 J [ 1 iLf YI '1! ...i C-l. -6?I111irn Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 17 Site Photos - . * imemito ... ,., 11 ... -, ..cr: . • ' '—....- 4 .3._ -- - 40 v4110lir: : Aa -.--:' iv — . li • riA 1,1,.04- -- ,_ .„_-_ -- - V ii ii . : , — , . ...... ____ — . v.. f ' . ' r ... .. ....„....... . - - - . , I ) • I I 0 M U Fi P H Y'S Q , iii%''.1-;‘, _ . ,..-. , 1 _ ,FL v,. ,.., _ __,._,Lt. — ••"..--- _ - - --- --- ----Thee --„, ...`• A A. A. " ^ aa .... imw,-0,-..raoserAmer„,„..."4,74, bi. NI 4Pairet;W,r.rsicr. ...-- ,IFV:‘," 4.4'707.404,74r4r4r4 '-sN'Tft5"%f t....4.0-:ciii. •,. Vs: 1.4,,,v.c...• .11641.1' , .4=.1k40.4.4tat34,0,146...0,. tt:4 ...44.44.e4,4..—vs.,,z. 4...;,, ,,...,,.......e.t. ' -...;•-:,,,z,A.,.:. :.. f....:414,4,,,,. ;1,1 .. c'6 , ft:'","-A^,P4:).:•f,e,.. iiittill'.<tel;''' N 1 IF41,--;7•TAr5.9r.v.— .,,,:,, ,it, •.• l4. p '•:-%tt. -.-dr.-..-6 4i,Arg---,, . , I/6_ a_, ,,,, f :. .,.. . +." , .., -,, .,_.•• i*-„,;,... .,,,-,„-,.. -4.,,,--,. ,ff4p,•. • . ""• .4....** ,1* do, _.i• . -. . ;-_, ,-- -.41.411.1;` -iir•.;‘.. :14, ,,,i.,.NO,,i, .$ , _;"4,.......g_.-' C C. '7.4*°14;it. V5?t 4' :");) 4440.410V41;- :—i,'e','C.-.1 $kt,,";.• ).• ..:'-',,,*--Atilia-•_,,--.fp' 1,4,--., .*.,:i.,, :.--c., -,.,.:ft..04,.Alk, --.. .,,, t'• :. Asela,i44,41014V. .4-' * 77, , - , ' . 146, 4*1 lib, \' •l'' Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 18 Site Photos , . ,4-: I :, min—2 '774..21k-1 PIE! CM..,c,01..• 141 - :,..„ i rrc,e -e. --- ••—...at'. '- :-, -,,. . ••,,..4,,,,. 441.111"....• - - „___. -- -_,,Irsub4441111r 4 ... „ .. , N. , __ .. ______, # N - -- -- TNII , Mi tzphy s S . ,,„•, .. , ,._. - - : , ii• IR sli-Pub 1 ' --,. • - ) II vir • /r FIN:E:,... , ,,,,A : • 3 ...L ..,... ,,,,,„.... ---_._ it„...1 _.,_ 417 .„,.: . . , ,,(.r.4 + ,Aii i 244, -, 1 III _ , .... , : 1, ,, 1 ,,.-.,,,f..? la-7- 7:- 1.!MI.:: so,,:"'i `i•-.4;.-— ) 1 i''I. ''''''''''.-=-- 7_.----- ;7— '-'- ' ' a _ i te....., -- _ 1 - 1 ., _, ..........„_____--- : ,., , _ ..1 ; .- .., ....., ,.. . 411 I -: ao, '''.•7 ' ',/...),-;. .... • • li - . - •. •- •V• ?... ,-..*-• . '' - • 1111111 I ' 01- '—`" f4; 4 ''',!:14-.-,, p . , --.- i•r,-: /Iv ,, :,,--. 4- .4.- • -. . . &.;-„_., tin,t,.,. 4... ,. .....;„ v...01 r%• — ,,,..i.:;--•- Sif-- 0,- r • .::-..,-', ,-,A.,.."7. , . .., , . „...„ .. Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 19 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement V3 The dnctosures contained in this form are necessary to inform pobtic officials who may vote on the application at to whether they have a conflict of interest under Virginia taw The Completion and submniion of this form as requited for a,t applications that pertain to City real estate matters or to the development and/or use of property in the City of Virginia Beach requiring action by the City Council or a City board.commission or other body Applicant Disclosure Applicant Name in liipk C V1 L/lfdlalt, aCCtCLi Does the appetam have a representative Yes 0 No • if yes.Fit the name of the represett toe tri 4 Is the asppkarss a corporation.partnership,firm.business.trust or an unincorporated business/ ,Yf2! 0 No • if yes, stt Ow names 000/ / f)at Ones.d,rettcn members.trustees.Hz below (Attach a tnt if necessary, fin L'10?Alf • n yes,bit the butnesses that have a patent whir hare or a!ist ides.Inrunett enter'relationship with the appinan: a Mat A necessary! 'parent tpetantare relatao ntep means'a relationship that toots when one toleration directly or indirectly owns shares possess more than SO percent of Mr voting power of anOMer corporation' Set State and torsi Government Canfhct of interests Act.VA Code f 2 11101 '•Afhlated business entity rdationshr0•means'a relationshrp other than parent subsidiary relationship.that exists when la(One busyness entity has a tontroaing ownership interest as the other business entity.(i.l a tonneaus'owner in one entity is also a rontroil sg Warner m the otter entry or ter,there is shared management Or control between the business entries Factors that should be Considered in determining the violence of as affiliated business entity retahnnsh.p include that the same person or substantiate the same person own or menage the two entities,there art tomnron or commingled rands or assets the busmen entities share the use of the same offices re employees or otherwise share attMtres.Pelmet es or personnel on a repafst basis,or there is otherwise a close woe Bing reaahonshrp between the entries•See Slate and local Government Coraftast of Interests Act Va t .i 1 1 31o1 Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 20 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement Pi 4uu c Can muau+ Devitiop nient Known Interest by Public Offfcltl or Employee Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Bets nave an interest sin the rubtecl land or any proposed development conttngent on the subject public action&0 Yes No • If yes,what is the nanx of the official or ernptoyee and what is the nature of the interest) Applicant Services Disclosure I Does the aptrbcant have any edging financing(mortgage deeds of trust,crostrtogateralication,etc/or are they considering any Wsancirrg in connection w;th the subject of Int application o,any business opetattr o•to be operated on the property) D Yes (No • I+yes,identify the financial inttrtutrons prov+6ng the service 2 Does the applicant have a real estate brdket jaeeist/rNkor for current and antscpated future sales of the wbleet property? Dyes IXNo • If yes,identify the company and sndnidual providing the service 3. Does the applicant have services for accounting and/or preparation of tat reform provided in connection w.th the subject of the aoplcation or any business operating or to be operated on the property)0 Yes WIo • If yes,identify the lino and rndndwl provd.ng the terser 4 Does the applicant have services from an architect/landscape architect/land planner psovrded rn connection wen the subject of the application or any business operating co to be operated on the property''YCS ❑No • If yes,identify the firm and irdss,dua no the service T, nlic. cslgti- Witow Nutcer1 r4 Va ug, 5 is there any other pendrng or proposed purchaser of the wblect reopens/❑Yes 1 NO • if yes,goem.4 the purchaser and purchasers service providers Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 21 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement V3 naming&Community Ikvekv nerd 6 Does the applicant have i construction Contractor to connection with the subfect of the acipkcatott or any business operating of to be operated on the property,k Yes 0 No • El yes,tdentiy the company and tnd.vtduai pitavdtng the setvrce CON_S4UL.t1df4 iF/err L' 1AI / WPL,_ 7 Does the applicant have an insinerailanveyoriTint in connection wan the subject of the appkatton or any business operating or to be operated on the property' 4i4 • If yes.identify the firm and dual prrov4 nnngthe service 8 Is the applicant reternng Neat sary cees rn connection with the subject of the application or any buuness operating or to be operated on the property)0 Yea O • If yes.ident fs tM hens and tndrvtdual prond.ng the service Applicant Siinature I certify that al Of the•.nlormatipr contained tr this Wubssre Statement Form is complete true anc accurate unde'sta d le.a' upon receipt of not ihcation that the apphtatnon has been s;hedufrd for public heating i am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission,City Council,VBOA,CBPA,Wetlands Board or any public bogie or committee in connection with this application Applic▪ant StpsajIfee (ere N700 N ey ( r/S 1 �•rl _. _ Print Name and Title 36 2i _ Date Is the applicant also the owner of the subject property Li Yes 0 No • If yes,e.11 k r'so need to flit out the ovine r d sclosarr State—eht FOR CITY USE ONLC/All disclosures must be updated two(2)weeks prior to any Planning Commission and CAy Council meeting than psftains to the apitrahons ( I°i"i 9I28/2021 . ` " r '7tlee.esssw Hank Morrison 3) Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 22 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement /13 tier ivor.•ara+ Planning&Community Development Owner Disclosure Owner Name SiCpkjv I(/ (rUCA:,,Yee fain;11 LLc Applicant Name 1'�U s rli r V1 r91 N iL� gilt __w Is the Owner a emporium,partnership,firm,harness,trust or an unincorporated business?D Yes Q No • ,t yet.hti the names of tO Doren,d'ertors,m�tInberl trustees.etc below (Mien a Mtl if necessary) Ski-kL►NC_ KiM (/tC , I�1C hcr RLL_ku4& k. VCe, frrmh�i • tt yes Ott the borne fah that have a parent-subsrdary'w atI sated busness entity'relatronohp with the Owner IAttach a kit if nertttaryf Known Interest by Public Official or employee Dort a, official or employee of the Ott of Virginia leach have an merest m the su*;ect rand or any proposed development cont.r,6ent on the subject pudic acsion; Yes )(No • it yes,what a fist name of site Wail l or employee and what rs the nature of the vnereslt parent-subsdrary relauonithp'meant relatiomfup that carts when one caeporatwn deed y or indrertly owns share: potations more than SO potent of the rioters power of another eor{orataon'See State and Local Governmtnt Confine of Interests Act,VA Code f223101 •'ANrhated boirsets entity relatronshro'means-a retationslup outer than parent subsidiary reattonstup,that ensts when Ir)one brMmess entity hoc a totrtrolln(ownership veriest,n the diner harness entity,Is)a controlling owner in one entry it alto a controlling owner at trw other entity,or lad there is shared management or control between the bwrness entties Farton that shook!be cors,dered in dtlerreinins llt erinence of an off icMed bonnets rimy retatransh,p Include that the fame person o' usbstai naby the same person own or rnanelt the two chutes there are commit w comrrvngled funds or assets:the banns ocelot shire the tat of the same offnes ce employees lie otherwise share ecinrr.ier,resourees or posoenel on a regular hash m tonne it otherwise a floc!Wetly/re:attf i%hip Whitten the ert,tes See State and:mil Government CMIfkrt Of InlMHlt Act,Va Code g223101 Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 23 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement153 r... ,... Planning&Comrtwni y Owner Services Disclosure 1 Does the Owner have any nustng hnanong Imoflha e.decal,of Ina,uoss cofatrahaat.on,et()or are they constdenng any WTI"in canMan with the subsea of the apple anon or any business operate(or to be operated on the property? 0 Yes %No • H yet dentth the fnencsat inst tutwns prod rK the servo 2 Does the Owner have a real estate broker/atent/reahor for(wres and anttcpkted Mutt sales of the subject property' 0 Yes )(No • H yet Yarn dy the company end indw•due'rowan the service 3 Does the Owner have services for accountant and/or preparation of tart returns;re conveetton*In the wowof the a:vitauon or any Witness operating or lobe°oersted on the property/0 Yes No • H yes,identify the firm and eschrehtal prosdind the servee 4 Does the Owner have services hoc+-architect/landscape arrh,tert/+and plow erprovidxed/rptohrkctun with the wblert of the apokcstton or any but ass oprrawl or to be operated en the property)0 YesNo • H yes,densdy the fete and t drrdvat proud:<ni the were S. Is ter,any other nerd"(or proposed purchaser of the wbtect property?0 Yes pYNO • tf yes.savory the purchaser and putthasers senate prowlers /` 6 Doer the Dries tuna corrtrurtlei COn?actor connMgn Wei the wbiect of the appleattort or any business proems(or to be operated on the property?0 Yes No • If yq,hire"the company and edwdual provd:r(the serv+tt / Does the Owner have an engteeer/curveyar/gvIt Connector with the subject of the spin(M on or art bus;nes%opre5rn5 a to be operated on the property ❑Yes )NO • If yes,dehtey the hem and end rrdual peowdoy the service Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 24 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement 4Er . e )1(.140 a Nits$t11T114• r0.41,-s.+prwei!!*etc*•IMl!0,1114t pew nr ,cvshr+t•rSPOO.Of t***.+wA 4114*1034 *,N-w f sz 14 ry Quh=<M!!.a news.Itwr ifs.cow a* t..!R iy.. _ a t,.M � �. intticilsw _„ C C kvck 3, 2021 Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 25 Next Steps • Upon receiving a recommendation from Planning Commission,this request will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. Staff will inform the applicant and/or their representative of the date of the hearing in the upcoming days. • Following City Council's decision,the applicant will receive a decision letter from Staff. • Once the conditions of approval are in place and/or completed,the applicant must contact the Zoning Division of the Planning Department to obtain verification that the conditions have been met. Contact the Zoning Division at 757-385-8074. • If the request requires land disturbance and/or a subdivision of property, please contact the Development Services Center(DSC)to discuss next steps for site plan/plat review. Contact the DSC at 757-385-4621 or the Development Liaison Team at 757-385-8610. • Please note that 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 approvals allowed by this application 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. Murphy's of Virginia Beach Agenda Item 11 Page 26 Virginia Beach Planning Commission September 8, 2021 Public Meeting Agenda Item # 11 Murphy's of Virginia Beach [Applicant] Stephen Yuen Yee Family, LLC [Property Owner] Alternative Compliance 2914 Pacific Avenue RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL— HEARD Mr. Weiner: Welcome, sir. Wait, she's just got to read it in for the record here. Madam Clerk: Our next item is agenda item number 11, which is Murphy's of Virginia Beach, an application for alternative compliance on property located at 2914 Pacific Avenue in the Beach District. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Mr. Garrington: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen Planning Commission for the record Billy Garrington on behalf of the applicant, the applicant in this case is Mr. Tom Mooney, owner of Murphy's Irish Pub 2914 Pacific Avenue. And, Mr. Chairman, I think there are actually two speakers, not just myself, so okay; Mr. Fine is here in the audience. And I know Mr. Fine for a very long time; have the utmost respect for him. And I think he has some concerns, one of the neighbors to the west of us. So the request we are here in front of you today is for the Alternative Compliance for the recurring outdoor events on this property at 2914 Pacific Avenue. This is the Mooney's restaurant that has had music there for some time since it's been going on and to the best of my knowledge, I don't think there have been any complaints from any of the surrounding properties. Mr. Mooney reached out to all of the businesses that were right adjacent to this before we came up to make sure that none of them had any problems with it. I think he's even supplied to city staff with some letters of support from Atlantic and Pacific and some of the other people but that doesn't mean that we don't have somebody else who's concerned with it and should be because that's people's homes and we want to make sure that we're good neighbors. I think if you look at the staff right up, staff tells you that we have oriented the stage that we are here today to ask for permission for which is these soundproof walls and the roof that goes over top of it.We have oriented toward faces towards the southeast.The residential properties to the west of us that we're trying to protect and make sure that we are not a nuisance to them, and if you also look at the conditions, there are nine conditions in the staff right up, you look at condition number two, this says we cannot have any amplified music permitted between the hours of 11 pm and 10 am. Obviously, we're not going to, but condition number three is really the one that is the catch all, it says the operation shall not disturb the tranquillity of the residential areas or other 1 areas in close proximity or otherwise interfere with a reasonable use, and enjoyment of neighbouring properties by reason of excessive noise,traffic,lighting, or overflow parking. I think that one condition right there very well sums up that we can't be a nuisance to any of the surrounding properties. And if we do, we risk losing our use permit. So, the staff right up the chair in front of you has a total of nine conditions, including those two that I just read to you.We're in total agreement with all those conditions. If you remember, this request was set to be heard last month, and we had to pull it for two reasons. Number one, we had to remove, relocate the stage because there was a problem with the vision triangle,we had to submit our landscaping plan to the resort area advisory committee and get their permission. We did both of those. And we also had a seating area around the fire pit that had about six inches of the back of the seat that was encroaching into the city property that has all been taken care of. We're back in front of you today to ask for your approval of this request. Last but not least, the gentleman who is in opposition to this or who is concerned lives next door to the West, I will promise you and him that I will set up a meeting before we go to city council with him, myself and Mr. Mooney, the two of them should meet personally. And he can get Mr. Mooney's personal cell phone number. So in case there are any problems at night- time, he's not calling to the restaurant and just getting somebody that's blowing him off saying I don't know what you're talking about.You talk directly to the owner, if any problems come up, and I will promise each one of you that I will make that meeting happen before we get to city council. Mr. Weiner: Any questions? Mr. Garrington: Oh, and I will apologize for the fact that they're already under construction out there, as I have explained to you. That is really an oversight of your city staff because the city staff said, look, the stage that you're wanting to build is not what you're asking for the alternative compliance for it's the walls and the roof.And they gave him a permit and told him he could go to work. Mr. Weiner: He keeps saying, I got a question for staff. We were told that there wasn't going to be a roof. Mr. Garrington: It shows right on the plans, but it's only over top of the stage. It's not over the entire seating area. Ms. Oliver: We had thought you were talking about a roof over the whole outdoor area. Mr. Garrington: No, it's just over top of the stage. Mr. Weiner: Okay, okay. Okay. Mr. Garrington: And the maximum height is eight feet. 2 Mr. Weiner: Thank you very much. All right. Madam Clerk: Mr. Chair. I'm only aware of one speaker and call Morris Fine. Mr. Weiner: Welcome sir. Mr. Fine: Ladies and gentlemen. I'm Morris Fine. I'm an attorney. I'm also a developer of sorts. I also represent Mr. Lance Goldner. Mr. Goldner and his family have owned the property to the west for some 35 years on which Mr. Goldner has built 71 apartments in the last seven to eight years. He is very concerned about the noise factor that will arise from this special use by Murphy's. It wasn't this property that he owned was there at the same time a Chinese restaurant was there and then it turned into Murphy's. And Murphy's first was a restaurant Murphy's, then they expanded to the outdoors and have outdoor service. And that was okay. But now we have this potential of noise from an open stage that's going to be built there. And on this stage, there's going to be amplifiers, there's going to be live music, there's going to be movies, there are the activities that we don't know about. And Mr. Goldner is very concerned, that his dance will be affected. Personally, I don't see how they cannot be affected. If somebody wanted to sit on their balcony and go to sleep at 8:30 or 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock at night or have babies, it's going to be affected by this noise. The noise doesn't stop at the property line. The noise is still there when you have a setback. The noise is going to be there forever and that's why there's a requirement that there be a special deviation. It seems to me maybe, I'm talking lawyer talk too much but the burden should be on the special applicant to come before you and say I will not infringe on your freedom from noise. We haven't heard anything from them to say that the noise won't infringe on my client's tenants, I must say that my client did not bargain for bands and live music when he put up his property and I don't think that the Murphy's has shown any reason to get a special exception and I would ask you to vote this down. Thank you. Mr. Weiner: Sir, stand by one second. Does anybody have any questions? I have a question. Has your client received in the past any comments or anything about loud noises or bands playing, bands have been playing out there, acoustic music, for a while now? Mr. Fine: I can't say because I don't know. He's here. Lance. Do you? Have you heard any complaints? Mr. Goldner: Yes sir, I have. Mr. Weiner: Sir, why don't you come up to the podium please. Mr. Goldner: I am Lance Goldner. I'm the property owner of the 71 units. And we have the next day after is when I get the phone calls from the tenants. They hear the music up to 11-12 o'clock at night and Chicho's last week was playing till 2 o'clock in the 3 morning. So it is an ongoing problem. And it vibrates right through the units, the front units. Mr. Wall: You know my question, first thing is okay, so you mentioned Chicho's or is it Murphy's? It's hard to tell. Ms. Oliver: First Ashby, is Ashby here? Ashby quick question on Chicho's, do they have, and I know you might not know this live music and what if they do are they permitted for it? And what is the deal with them with Chicho's? Do you know? Ms. Moss: They don't have some kind of; they don't have this for recurring special events outdoors. But traditionally, restaurants, bars do have live entertainment. And at some point, it's enough if it's outdoors to warrant needing this special exception for recurring events. Another reason this one was a little bit different is because the nature of their events proposed is a broader variety than just bands performing or music performing. So I don't know the frequency. I don't know if zoning has heard complaints or if the police have gotten noise complaints.They should not be having any outdoor music after 11 pm. Ms. Oliver: Might be able to. Mr. Goldner: I was there Saturday night at 11:30 and they had a band outside playing. I called the police and they told me they had to wait for a supervisor and we've got 45 minutes for an hour. Ms. Oliver: And was Murphy's? Mr. Goldner: No, it's Chicho's. Ms. Oliver: Chicho's, so we might Mr. Tajan might see if we can't, maybe delve into that a little bit deeper, see what possibly is going on over there. Mr. Goldner: It's been going on. Mr. Fine: But the problem of policing should not be put on Lance Goldner, and the whole issue of this noise should have been brought in some fashion before you said they're not gonna have any noise. Not just a little bit but not. Mr. Weiner: Understand, Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall: Can you point out your properties? There's a pointer, there's a pointer right here on the podium. Mr. Fine: I have a picture here. 4 Mr. Wall: Those two, that are closer to Chicho's. Mr. Goldner: Well, close to both. There and there. Ms. Oliver: Chicho's is, okay got it, thanks, Ashby, got it. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Jack? Mr. Wall: This is not necessarily on the same application, but they talk about, do you have any problem with the noise from? Mr. Goldner: No. Mr. Wall: Okay. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Mr. Garrington. Mr. Garrington: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief as I can. This will not be happening at 2 o'clock in the morning, like they're saying, because of the conditions that you have and the staff write up. Mr. Fine says that the onus is upon us to tell you that we're not going to do this. And we have told you that because condition number two, that's one of the conditions that we have agreed to, we will not damage or interfere with the tranquility of the surrounding properties with noise, light, traffic, overflow parking any of that, that's one of the conditions that the staff has put on us, if we don't agree to that condition, our use permit would be null and void, he would have spent a tremendous amount of money for something that he doesn't even have the ability to use anymore. And last but not least, we have told you or we haven't told you, but I'm telling you now that this is only going to be 10 to 15 special events a year, this is not going to be something that's going to be going on out there every night of the year. So he has said that it would be a maximum of 15 events a year. And that's what we're here to ask for your approval for today. Ms. Oliver: If that's the case, Mr.Garrington,then does the number want to be in the conditions of a number of 15? Mr. Garrington: That's fine, I have no problem with it. And last but not least, again, regardless of the outcome today, I will have Mr. Goldner and Mr. Mooney and myself meet personally, so that he can get his phone number, if there are any problems in the future. He knows who to call, to where he can get to the right person on with one phone call without calling over there and getting someone who just doesn't do anything about it.And we apologize for putting you in this position. But this is where we have. Ms. Oliver: One more question for you. 5 Mr. Garrington: Yes ma'am. Ms. Oliver: Live music, define his version of live music, does that include a drum set? Mr. Garrington: I'm sure it probably does it sometime. I mean, I'm not a musician, but. Ms. Oliver: No, I just see how big a band it is. Mr. Garrington: Yeah. But again, the walls are the sound absorbing and the roof also, and I think that's going to be critical to this to make sure that it does absorb as much of the noise as possible, rather than being outside like it has been for the last couple of years that they've been doing. Ms. Oliver: Okay. Mr. Weiner: For the record, I'm going to point out my concern, which doesn't, I know, it has nothing to do with you. It has less to do with what our city did with the permitting. But I don't agree with pulling up on site last week and watching half the stage has already been built and that just sent me wrong way and I didn't like that. And I still don't. But I understand what happened, so it is what it is. We have taken it on. Mr. Garrington: If I will be in our position, I would feel the same way, but again, I just want you to understand that he did what the city told him he could do. Mr. Weiner: I understand. Mr. Garrington: That's where you have to go. Thank you, sir. Ms. Oliver: So we're gonna add that condition of 15. Mr. Garrington: Yes, ma'am. I'll be more than glad to. Ms. Oliver: Thank you. Okay. thank you, sir. Ms. Klein: I have a question for him. Mr. Weiner: Sorry, Mr. Garrington. Okay, thank you sir. Ms. Klein: So if I wanted to have a party at my house, and the noise ordinance is 11 pm to 7 am. Does that mean that as long as the party was done by 11 pm, my neighbors would not have grounds to complain? Mr. Tajan: Bit of a nebulous hole to send me down to be honest. You would not technically be able to violate the noise ordinance, I'll say that. Sorry to give you the Weasley 6 answer and also depending on the number of people is what also triggers the need for a special event permit depending on how many people you have in house. Ms. Klein: But in terms of the noise violation, as long as the party is over by 11? Mr. Tajan: As long as you don't go over, I'm sorry, I'm gonna give you the zoning administrator type answer on this one,as long as you don't go over the decibel level as measured by the ordinance past 11 pm then you would not be in violation. Ms. Klein: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wall: So you're saying there is a decimal requirement before 11? Mr. Tajan: Tori, You're more familiar with that code section. Ms. Eisenberg: I believe it's after 11. Mr. Tajan: Yes after 11 there is a decibel level that you cannot go over that is measured very specifically. Ms. Klein: So then in response to that,that seems to be the biggest issue right now based on these complaints, you know, and I certainly would want the city to follow up with Chicho's and their noise until 2 am based solely on that, I would be in support of the project. Mr. Weiner: Okay. Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall: So in fact the noise ordinance, so it doesn't, it wouldn't apply prior to 11. Is that what I'm? Ms. Eisenberg: It's also enforced by the police department. So that might be why it's throwing planning staff a little bit of a curveball. So it is enforced by the police department. So if there are noise complaints, it should be the police department that's contacted. Ms. Wall: I mean that's kind of subjective. It's tough to because it's, what is it four feet inside the wall, four feet from the wall, 75 decibels, I can't remember what the decibels are, okay. Mr. Weiner: Anybody else? Mr. Inman: I have a question about the parking arrangement? I'd like to have more detail on it Mr. Garrington. I'm just not clear on how the parking arrangement is made with the city. 7 Mr. Garrington: He has an offsite parking agreement with this 31st street parking garage right across the street that he has to keep in, keep current for 13 parking spaces in that garage next door. Mr. Inman: Are they assigned the spaces? Mr. Garrington: I'm not sure if they're assigned or not, but he has to, there is an agreement that he has with that parking garage for 13 parking spaces. Mr. Inman: Then there will be available? Mr. Garrington: That's correct. Mr. Inman: Alright. Thank you. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Comments? Motion? Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond: I move approval of the application with the addition of Ms. Oliver's condition limiting the number of events to 15 per year. Ms. Klein: And I will second. Mr. Weiner: I have a motion by Mr. Redmond, and second by Mrs. Klein. Madam Clerk: The vote is open. Mr.Wall. By recorded vote of 10 in favor and zero against agenda item number 11 has been recommended for approval with conditions as amended. Mr. Chair, do you want me to read all four of these together? AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz ABSENT Bradley AYE Coston AYE Graham AYE • Horsley AYE Inman AYE Klein AYE Oliver AYE Redmond AYE Wall AYE Weiner AYE CONDITIONS 8 1. All new, permanent structures shall substantially conform to the renderings depicted in "Murphy' Outdoor Exhibit," dated August 27, 2021, by WPL, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. No amplified music shall be permitted outdoors between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. 3. The operation shall not disturb the tranquility of residential areas or other areas in close proximity or otherwise interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring property by reason of excessive noise, traffic, lighting, or overflow parking. 4. The height of the stage walls shall not exceed eight(8)feet and shall be soundproofed with acoustic foam paneling. 5. A parking validation agreement for at least eight(13) parking spaces shall be maintained at the 31st Street Parking Garage with Republic Parking System or in a location as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 6. An off-site parking agreement for at least fifteen (15) parking spaces shall be maintained at the "Parking Parcel" indicated in the attached agreement. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining this agreement, or provide 15 parking spaces in another location as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 7. A minimum of 10 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on site. 8. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the renderings depicted in the "Murphy's Outdoor Dining Landscape Plan," dated August 6, 2021, by Winn, Winn &Associates, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 9. Four(4) replacement London Plane trees or large street trees of a species acceptable to the DSC Landscape Architect shall be planted in the verge between the sidewalk and 30th Street. The trees shall be placed in conformance with the "Planting Plan, 30th Street," dated December 14, 2005 by WPL, which is on file with the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works and Engineering Division and is shown on page 16 of this report. The trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2 1/2' at breast height at the time of planting. 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 approvals allowed by this application 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. 9 r: . ` August 5,2021 PRINTING To whom it may concern. I writing this letter to show my full support for Murphys Irish Pub to create an outdoor event and entertainment venue in front of their establishment.As an established business just down the street from the proposed location I feel that outdoor activities such as these can only improve and enhance the experience and enjoyment of our community. The City of Virginia Beach offers free entertainment and events at its stages along Atlantic Avenue and the oceanfront that greatly increase the appeal of our city as a destination for music fans. If all rules set forth by the city pertaining to quiet hours and sound levels are followed,I can only imagine this will improve the newly named Artery district.The city is working hard to improve our Laskin Road corridor.We applaud Murphys for all their hard work to help this effort. Sincerely, David and Deborah Matthews Owners,Virginia Beach Printing Co. 3000 Baltic Avenue Virginia Beach,Virginia 23451 Tel 757.428.4282 Fax 757.491.7871 P,ncnn^+1 nvmntl 4 hr I *I Outdoor Permit Nearinn Mnrnhv'c Rar Rr Rrctanrant •v Iv'vtrB9Hr•nor n>1IJflV al 014 \01 NI h'C t t In trOln,A rsParn 1 Reinnnrt ni4irrntty c liar and Restaurant reouest for outdoor venue nermit. . lort Co%Pinoc rt Vireinia Beach.VA 23451 To whom it may concern. I am writing this letter to show my full support to Murphy's Irish Pub's endeavors to create an outdoor event and entertainment venue in front of their establishment As the only neighbor living directly across the street from the proposed location I feel that outdoor activities such as these can only improve and enhance the experience and enjoyment of the community. These are the such things not different from the free entertainment offer by the city at its stages and events along Atlantic Ave that greatly increase the appeal of our oceanfront as a premier destination for music fans In general on a daily basis I observe these types of people as paying well mannered individuals which can only help in the regrowth of the oceanfront front establishments that were so drastically effected by the covid 19 economic crisis If all rules set forth by the city pertaining to quiet hours and sound levels I can only imagine how something like this can only improve the newly named Artery district which the city is working so hard to improve the Laskin rd corridor Cheers to Murphys for all their hardwork and efforts to help this effort and area Sincerely David Feineis 307 30th street Va beach va 23451 • 1 St�£Z dA a�e.OPP and°Milefl I coZ epazzeaao'auilanbaef 1!uuad anuan ioopino l03 isanku iueineisali pue.ieg s,Sgdmw uoddns I Noma erui9nn u!anuand ame8 IS6Z le 3u!p!sai iauMoawog a sy minimal!ap Jefi s ,�gd.my�3uueafl i!uuad looping gaeag oru!3nn t ZOZ/S0/S Rmsnmt Virginia Beach Outdoor Permit Hearing Murphv's Bar&Restaurant As a homeowner residing at 304 Sea Pines Ct in Virginia Beach,1 support Murphy's Bar and Restaurant request for outdoor venue permit. Kathleen Simpkins Ina Se i Pines Ct Virginia Beach,VA 23451 - To Whom it May Concern, This letter is in reference to Murphy's Irish Pub's request to construct an outdoor venue consisting of a stage that will have insulated walls and a roof to help project the sound towards the boardwalk and away from the neighborhood behind them. The rest of the space will be a social area where people can play games like corn hole or have other events. Murphy's has had live entertainment on their deck the last 5 years with no nuisance to the community or my business. It has been quite the opposite. When events are offered by Murphy's, my foot traffic grows, and everyone is happy. We as a business here at the Atlantic fully support the plans for this stage and understand exactly what it is they are going for and hope this letter helps them speed up the process. If you should have any questions or concerns,please feel free to contact me at the restaurant at 757-422-2122 my cell at 757-839-3861 or via email at amato.vincentAgmail.com . Regards, V A wd- Vincent Amato General Manager/Partner of The Atlantic on Pacific STC ratings for masonry/CMU walls is based on weight of the block and whether the cells are filled or not and why material it is filled with. Estimated STC Ratings for CMU Walls Hollow Units Grout Filled Sand Filled Wall Thickness. in. Weight STC Weight STC Weight STC L 4 J 20 44 38 47 32 46 1 6 32 46 63 51 50 49 8 42 48 86 55 68 52 10 53 50 109 60 86 55 Align* 130de Trace T galio Irp1 ur Sr r[n: 110 dR MOtOr€yClt. 110dB ,'� ie Caws MC'wrr t0uq Bin DN. 9O de 100 dB - , hlughbars. 7O d B d . �b ''1' iiik...4144,1,10.,_. 4 , hill � � C -� t titt. "� cn to co v.) in ColCn C/3 CD Cr) 0 Cn C+ J 1 MUM-N1.w AO • 43% NNW s SO..,IT 50°/0- m5,/0 ,r 62 �" 11f.ati SMN 1111 67 Io RPM$144,4111, 78% coustical®AAAA 2420 Grenoble Road Richmond, VA 23294 Technical SOLUTIONS Toll Free: 8007825742 Data Sheet ' 1 For every environment of your life. mom a AudioSeal° Reinforced Sound Barrier p DESCRIPTION AudioSeal® Reinforced Sound Barrier is a high strength mass loaded vinyl that can be used when a durable,tear V" resistant material is required for soundproofing.This sound barrier is reinforced with a high-strength polyester fabric to improve durability to prevent tearing when suspended vertically. It is often hung using grommets to prevent the passage of airborne sound and noise. - - ' Since this barrier can support its own weight, you can use it to create hanging barrier partitions. If partition walls do not go up to the roof deck, you can use it as a sound barrier extension to the wall, which will prevent sound from flanking into the next room. This versatile material may be used for a wide range TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS of sound blocking solutions that require free hanging curtain panels,jacket wraps for machinery, to create SIZE: 54" wide x 30' long partition panels or for OEM applications. You can fasten or hang this barrier with grommets or other hardware to THICKNESS: 1/8" create any number of configurations. Reinforced barrier is often combined with quilted fiberglass products to WEIGHT: 1 lb./sq. ft. provide both absorption and sound blocking for industrial applications. Barrier is resistant to shrinking, rotting, COVERAGE: 135 sq. ft. adverse environmental conditions and UV light. TENSILE STRENGTH: 400 p.s.i. TEAR STRENGTH: 12.9 kg/cm (72 lb/in) ELONGATION: 40% (min.) Lot TEMP. RANGE: -40 deg. F to 180 deg F 1116* STC: 26 SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz STC 16 17 22 27 31 36 26 'Oh as-audioseal-reinforced-sound-barrier-data-sheet 2017-08-18 csi� pQrN u'"./,.° ,,At . ;.. :ViiV A I. J<�s r<.Q.v •�C 4' z••e — `s..< W N O Q ' QQ ' ` k.J. "�� ��•;r(fl�/��/,/•� .., r�Y7f`:):: ii•• '^ /�/_ in �'� o ;,(,:2cp,.0:4c(c.4‘,>.%:,:e:ck,4:4.117; ,�,. t�`'�i y �.. �;��^���:,. � 0:::,•:.1:t47.1'.1 '�� ---ceir): •`�rCN Io• • I:L t ...,;„,, 4!„,,,, ..i.,„, AO /.4t.,• ...Zeze cl_ ,.,c.,,,,,,, , , CV C i \ 1. '7 4�l Y/ r'r' �. 1�1 + _ Ct IV t r N I aQ '^(/^ J/�� " •_•• : - �f L1-y J .,:, � Tinto N N�OCN `�' *J"�.� ,� • 'N �'9��0 t.. L `4 /f�rr4-._� ; i �`-0 '. jO. M V • N Re:: CO doo m a NQ' o� /11 • ef,N.4 ,' GdLnoj ° co Ca , . /.� m , ; V P . �..oar �• ; o 747. t� r a. a,5. . !� 4 M C -4/ '' J���/y L N CO 1 i 1-T'lltolt.'*At."" '',/" 40=1:0T"' : 4<ti Mitt., C‘-' >+ CL Iii ,. `� " ' =� ® to N N ' ,''' ki;01‘11 Q•o ' .•n ►-, 'yoi p (1) ix,,, upf.;, .v& . y //...,.%' 111,11.1a ,1 0 1) 0 M • 61.1 i ` / , a Nam\ \ ,. N \U1, °, ,v�©,OaA CD 0 MM CO/�r W �� W ��Q r 'ro. '/- (III''s le '°� CO \' UGC m al ... ( , , . �`�\ \� or 1 . . oes\%7 _ 0 — cc, - -N qt)" ..c L. i \ ii ATI ,, L. .R m .: , li �C !Z_ ❑ .• = O a �13/, tip., � • • N.o N LO it a ` \ Cm ° /\ .© • i ,< I:Nc• � � CO• oW� 'coa oo m la . " ''N r •.N ' n d 1 4 •.t ^Ce r• Cr! 1.17i \ • 0 4 N ,lx .3 C)p6,-� Q c 73 Z , ' to, o ' r aoo N m I, i Q ii " 9 0„ ,. fi WAY'0 4 / AV 4N- • CD DI tc:Pa Las 0 P oc o Q oa ru,, f r -A ,, ft ,z,,-, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [Applicant] VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & FROB, LLC [Property Owners] Modification of Proffers to a Conditional Rezoning (Updating the Design Criteria of Corporate Landing Business Park) for the property located at Corporate Landing Business Park (GPINs 2415122650, 2415040770, 2415146859, 2415259170, 2415227788). COUNCIL DISTRICT — PRINCESS ANNE MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 • Background: This request was deferred by the City Council on September 21 , 2021 and September 7, 2021 in order for the applicant to provide additional notification and information to the adjacent property owners regarding the details of the proposed changes to the Design Criteria for the Corporate Landing Business Park (the Park) for properties under the ownership of the Virginia Beach Development Authority and FROB, LLC. The applicant sent letters to 167 neighboring properties within 500 feet from the parcels associated with this request. A copy this notice is attached. The Park was established in 1988 and an update to the Design Criteria was last completed in 1998. The proposed Design Criteria will be applicable to properties owned by the Virginia Beach Development Authority and FROB, LLC. The remainder of the Park will be subject to the current Design Criteria. The design criteria provide guidance on land use, site design, building design, landscaping, and signage to ensure a unified, qualitative park environment. The updated design criteria for Corporate Landing Business Park will simplify the review process for developments within the Park to one cohesive document and align with current codes and regulations. Overall, the new design criteria will: o Soften requirements for setbacks, parking, building materials, and landscape screening, while maintaining guidelines to remain an attractive "park-like" setting o Permit more flexibility with new and innovative materials and construction methods o Provide more guidance on light industrial and advanced manufacturing building types, orientation and façade articulation Virginia Beach Development Authority Page 2 of 3 The VBDA intends to continue to encourage the construction of attractive quality environs through the updated criteria. • Considerations: Planning Commission concurs with Staff that the request to update the Design Criteria for the Park is acceptable. The current Design Criteria are outdated and no longer align with the development pattern that was originally envisioned for the Park. The new Design Criteria seek to: o Ensure that the Park remains relevant for current and future market opportunities o Reduce redundancy and better align the document with current codes and requirements o Consolidate multiple subsequent amendments into one user-friendly and attractive document o Permit more flexibility with new and innovative materials and construction methods o Provide more guidance on light industrial and advanced manufacturing building types If the design criteria update is not adopted, opportunities to grow and diversify the local economy could be missed by the current design requirements and longer entitlement process. The updated design criteria would create a more marketable and comparative business park in the region. Further details pertaining to the application, as well as Staff's evaluation, are provided in the attached Staff Report. There is no known opposition to this request. Along with the Adjacent Property Owner notifications required by law, Staff mailed 223 letters to individual property owners that according to City records own property within 500 feet of the areas of the park where updates to the Design Guidelines are proposed. • Recommendation: On August 11, 2021 , the Planning Commission Planning Commission placed this application on the Consent Agenda, passing a motion to recommend approval by a recorded vote of 9-0. Virginia Beach Development Authority Page 3 of 3 • Attachments: Staff Report and Disclosure Statements Proposed Updated Corporate Landing Design Criteria — 2021 Detailed List of Changes Location Map Proffer Agreement Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Existing Corporate Landing Design Criteria — 1998 Notice Letter from VBDA to Adjacent Residences of the Park Recommended Action: Staff recommends Approval. Planning Commission recommends Approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department0 City Manager: _Z V • S Applicant Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item Property owners Virginia Beach Development Authority & FROB, LLC City of Planning Commission Public Hearing August 11, 2021 8 Virginia Beach city Council Election District Princess Anne Request Modification of Proffers (Update to the Design Criteria) s Road \_._ , Staff Recommendation "a`°e1 Saku.a lam Approval b Staff Planner `tee 3 Hoa N. Dao Dam Neck Road Location Portion of Corporate Landing Business Park �ir. GPINs 2415122650, 2415040770, 2415146859, cw Act le 2415259170, 24152277882. ( �J�I�A ' Site Size d ��top �:1 �Approximately 189 acreslib.g + ={ J AICUZ y i b1h qo ,y „` � # -� 6!' 70-75 dB DNL, Greater than 75 dB DNL Ivy � � % �- � Watershed , I f.) ; f - lir ^ le '^ Southern Rivers Existing Land Use and Zoning District Office-warehouse,vacant parcels in Corporate r Landing Business Park/ B-2 Community v...: .. Business, I-1 Light Industrial s Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts -" .r .., ", North Dam Neck Road Public schools /AG-1 Agricultural , South General Booth Boulevard %` ' Single-family dwellings, offices, mixed retail / R- 7.5 & R-10 Residential, 0-2 Office, B-2 Community Business East Single-family dwellings, cultivated field/ R-5D Residential, AG-1 Agricultural West - • Corporate Landing Parkway Woods, single-family dwellings/PD-H1 Planned Unit Development Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 1 Background & Summary of Proposal • The applicant is seeking a Modification of Proffers to update the Design Criteria for a portion of Corporate Landing Business Park(the Park). The Park property was rezoned in 1988 and the Design Criteria was adopted in 1990 with an addendum added in 1998. • Letters were mailed to property owners within the Park to allow them an opportunity to be a party to this application. One property owner, FROB, LLC, accepted. • The new Design Criteria seek to: o Ensure the Corporate Landing Business Park remains relevant for current and future market opportunities; o Reduce redundancy and better align the document with current codes and requirements; o Consolidate multiple subsequent amendments into one user-friendly and attractive document; o Permit more flexibility with new and innovative materials and construction methods; and o Provide more guidance on light industrial and advanced manufacturing building types. ' •w Zoning History # Request y!�vi��l ,'�-` � 1 CRZ(Conditional B-2 to Conditional 1-1)Approved ® .�1 y'�I'/� „ <4• 4. i 4 03/19/2019 a MOD(Proffers)Approved 06/25/1996 ° • � / MOD(Proffers)Approved 11/09/1993 , -•� ': MOD(Proffers)Approved 08/14/1989 � ,._ // CRZ(AG-1&AG-2 to Conditional 1-1)Approved � 'J /�W��,�/;.,., . r+ 06/13/1988 f■ 1� /� � ',•aV i 3 r 2 CUP(Fiber Optics Transmission Facility)Approved ' QV,y® •�ii'''' 10/04/2016 ��c", '+.� 3 MOD(Proffers)Approved 03/17/2015 I�\-w -�i.,-.� f�� 4 MOD(Proffers)Approved 09/14/2004 = . '.4" `! ' 140 CRZ(AG-2 to Conditional B-2)Approved 01/25/1994 • ` 5 CRZ(I-1 to Conditional B-2)Approved 11/09/1993 Application Types CUP—Conditional Use Permit MOD—Modification of Conditions or Proffers FVR—Floodplain Variance LUP—Land Use Plan REZ—Rezoning NON—Nonconforming Use ALT—Alternative Compliance STR—Short Term Rental CRZ—Conditional Rezoning STC—Street Closure SVR—Subdivision Variance Evaluation & Recommendation The request to update the Design Criteria for Corporate Landing Business Park, in Staff's opinion, is acceptable.The current Design Criteria is outdated and no longer aligns with the development pattern that was originally envisioned for the Park. Other parcels within the Park were informed of the request to update the Design Criteria and opted not to be included with this request.These properties will continue to be subject to the existing Design Criteria that was adopted in 1990 and amended in 1998. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 2 Overall,the new Design Criteria reduce requirements for setbacks, parking, building materials, and landscape screening, while maintaining guidelines to remain an attractive "park-like"setting. CURRENT DESIGN CRITERIA UPDATED DESIGN CRITERIA SETBACKS: Adjacent to Dam Neck Road 100 ft. 50 ft. Adjacent to Residential 75 ft. 50 ft. Neighborhoods _ Adjacent to General Booth Blvd. 75 ft. 30 ft. Adjacent to Corporate Landing 50 ft. 25 ft. Parkway Other Public Streets 50 ft. 20 ft. Side & Rear Property Line 15 ft. 15 ft. Between Parking Lots and Buildings 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. (excluding sidewalks) PARKING: • One parking space for each 250 • Off-street parking must conform square feet of gross floor area to Section 203 of the Zoning used for offices. Ordinance as amended. • One parking space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area for research and development or one space per employee on the highest working shift,whichever is greater. • One parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for commercial/retail. • One and one-half parking spaces per hotel room. • The width of parking lot drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet. BUILDING MATERIALS: • Recommend architectural • Recommend architectural materials are glass,granite, pre- materials are glass,granite, cast concrete, and brick. concrete, brick, and metal. • Bright overall colors shall not be • Bright overall colors shall not be permitted. permitted. However, bright colors are encouraged to enhance focal points and serve as accents. LANDSCAPE: • The developer of the individual • Sod rather than seeding is sites shall provide a continuous required within 50' of all evergreen and/or low berm buildings; all adjoining roads shall screen along any side of a parking have sod along the entire property line from the road edge Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 3 lot that abuts a public street to the parking lot edge.The right-of-way. minimum width of sod along • The developer of any site that road edges where there is no abuts a storm water retention parking lot shall be 30'.All other lake or canal shall provide a lawn areas not receiving sod may landscape buffer(minimum be seeded. width 15 feet) between said lake • All site entry drives shall be well and/or canal and any proposed landscaped with a combination parking lot. This buffer shall be of shade trees,flowering trees, planted with a mixture of and flower beds, deciduous and evergreen plant materials. As the proposed revision to the Design Criteria will simplify the review process for developments within the Park to one cohesive document and align with current codes and regulations, Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the proffers below. Proffers The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA).The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h)of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable,"(§107(h)(1)).Should this application be approved,the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. Proffer 1: The Property is hereby removed and released from the Existing Proffers and said Property will now be subject to the proffers contained herein. Proffer 2: Excluding the Property specifically described on Exhibit A,the remaining parcels of land located within Corporate Landing and not owned by the Applicants shall remain subject to the Existing Proffers,which remain in full force and affect. Proffer 3: Further conditions may be required by the City during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all City agencies and departments. Proffer 4: Except for permanent facility construction,exterior storage shall be prohibited. Proffer 5: Fencing on the Property,other than for screening purposes and where it is necessary for the security of certain facilities or necessary to funnel visitors to designated entry points, is prohibited. The VBDA shall approve all proposed fences for material,color, location, coupled plantings and overall impact. Proffer 6: Temporary facilities,other than construction related facilities,shall not be permitted within the front yards and when located in the rear yards,shall be removed immediately upon completion of the permanent facility. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 4 Proffer 7: All loading docks and dumpster areas that are visible from the lake area or street shall be screened with a wall a minimum of 8 ft.that matches the materials used on the building. Dumpsters shall also be gated.The screen wall shall be softened in its entirety with shrubs and trees. The extent of the screen wall and landscaping shall be subject to VBDA approval. Proffer 8: Those uses permitted in I-1 and B-2 zoning are permitted on the Property. Those uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit from City Council shall continue to do so. Proffer 9: The following lists the minimum parking lot setback requirements: a) Adjacent to Dam Neck Road 50 ft. b) Adjacent to Residential Neighborhoods 50 ft. c) Adjacent to General Booth Blvd. 30 ft. d) Adjacent to Corporate Landing Parkway 25 ft. e) Other Public Streets 20 ft. f) Side& Rear Property Line 15 ft. g) Between Parking Lots and Buildings 10 ft. (excluding sidewalks) Proffer 10: The following are the parking requirements: a) Off-street parking must conform to Section 203 of the Zoning Ordinance as amended. b) The City's parking requirements shall not relieve the site owner or lessor of the responsibility of providing ample on-site parking for actual user demands. Parking on access roads and dedicated streets shall be prohibited. c) Parking lot landscape standards shall conform to the City of Virginia Beach Landscape Guide as amended. Proffer 11: The Corporate Landing Business Park Design Criteria,dated July 2021, is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference for additional specifications, conditions and requirements related to design requirements, land use, responsibilities of the VBDA,grading,drainage, utilities, plantings, lighting, building design and orientation, building materials and color and signage in Corporate Landing. Staff Comments:The Proffers provide more flexibility for developments within the Park to create a more marketable and comparative business park in the region.Staff has reviewed the Proffers listed above and finds them acceptable. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the agreement and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 5 1996 Proffers That Remain in Effect for The Remainder of The Park 1. All uses permitted in the R & D Research and Development Office Warehouse District (R & D)shall be permitted within the MDO Medium Density Office Use District (MDO). Likewise, all uses permitted within the MDO district shall be permitted within the R & D district. 2. In addition to the uses identified in the prior proffers,within the R & D and MDO districts the following uses are permitted: Manufacturing Public buildings and grounds Heliports. Provided however,that no portion of a heliport may be located within 500 feet of residentially zoned property. 3. Except as modified herein,the prior Proffers shall remain in full force and effect. 1989 Proffers That Remain in Effect for The Remainder of The Park 1. The following uses shall be the only uses permitted within each district. Those uses requiring a conditional use permit from City Council shall continue to be required to obtain said conditional use permit, and City Council by accepting this proffer, does not grant the right to place any conditional uses within the property. R&D: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT This classification refers to the development of on and two story office/warehouse buildings. USE 1. Business, medical,financial, nonprofit, professional and similar office buildings in conjunction with an office/warehouse environment. 2. Establishments such as linen suppliers,freight movers, communication services and canteen services. 3. Establishments which deliver merchandise in bulk by truck or van. 4. Light assembly, processing,extracting, packaging or fabricating establishments. 5. Motion picture studios. 6. Printing lithographic or publishing establishments. 7. Public utilities installations and substations including offices. 8. Radio or television transmission and relay stations. 9. Wholesaling, warehousing,storage or distribution establishments. 10. Eating and drinking establishments in connection with other permitted uses (no free-standing restaurant sites). 11. Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 6 MDO DISTRICT: MEDIUM DENSITY OFFICE USE This classification refers to the development of mid-rise office buildings. USE 1. Business, medical,financial, nonprofit, professional,and similar office buildings. 2. Eating and drinking establishments in connection with other permitted uses(no free-standing restaurant sites). 3. Motion picture studios. 4. Printing, lithographic or publishing establishments. 5. Recreational facilities of an outdoor nature in accordance with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 6. Vocational, industrial and trade schools. 7. Recreational facilities other than those of an outdoor nature. 8. Public and private schools,colleges and universities. 9. Public utility facilities. 10. Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. MXD2 DISTRICT: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT This classification refers to the development of a mixed use complex that would provide retail shops, restaurants, office space,and similar uses. USE 1. Automobile service stations or repair facilities that perform the same functions as cited in Section 111 of the Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance. 2. Bakeries, confectioneries and delicatessens, provided that products prepared or process on the premises shall be sold at retail and only on the premises. 3. Business studios,offices,and clinics. 4. Car wash facilities, provided that: (i) no water produced by activities on the zoning lot shall be permitted to fall upon or drain across public streets or sidewalks or adjacent properties; (ii)a minimum of three (3)off-street parking spaces for automobiles shall be provided for each car wash space within the facility. 5. Child care and child care education centers. 6. Drugstores, beauty shops and barbershops. 7. Eating and drinking establishments without drive-through windows. 8. Financial institutions. 9. Florists,gift shops and stationery stores. 10. Service and repair services for business machines,sign shops and other small service businesses. 11. Grocery stores,carry-out food stores and convenience stores any of which are not freestanding but are in a structure with a gross floor area of less than five thousand (5,000)square feet. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 7 12. Laboratories and establishments for the production and repair of eye glasses, hearing aids and prosthetic devices. 13. Laundry and dry cleaning agencies. 14. Medical and dental offices. 15. Museums and art galleries. 16. Job and commercial printing. 17. Personal service establishments, other than those listed separately. 18. Athletic clubs. 19. Public utilities installations and substations, including offices. 20. Repair and sales for radio and television and other household appliances,except where such establishments exceed two thousand five hundred (2,500)square feet of floor area. 21. Retail establishments,other than those listed separately, including the incidental manufacturing of goods for sale only at retail on the premises; retail sales and display rooms. 22. Veterinary establishments and commercial kennels, provided that all animals shall be kept in soundproofed,air- conditioned buildings. 23. Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 2. The following chart lists the building requirements within the various classifications for minimum lot area,width,yard spacing,floor area ration,and coverage: R& D MDO MXD2 Minimum Lot Area 3.5 Ac _ 3.5 Ac 1.0 Ac Minimum Lot Width 100' 100' 100' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to General Booth Boulevard 75' -- _ 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Corporate Landing Drive 75' 75' 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Other Public/Private Streets 50' 50' 50' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Residential Neighborhoods 75' 75' 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Side Property Lines 30' 30' 30' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Rear Property Lines _ 30' 30' 30' Maximum Floor Area Ratio .50 .90 .90 Maximum Building and Paved Area Coverage(excluding outside plaza and gathering 75% 60% 75% areas) 3. The following chart lists the parking lot setback requirements within the various classifications of the property. R&D MDO MXD2 Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to General Booth Boulevard 75' -- 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Corporate Landing Drive 50' 50' 50' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Other Public Streets 50' 50' 50' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Private Streets (excluding access drives& parking 25' 25' 25' lot drive aisles) Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Residential Neighborhoods 75' 75' 75' Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 8 Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Side Property Lines (excluding common drive 15' 15' 15' aisles between parcels) Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Rear Property Lines 15' 15' 15' Minimum Yard Setback Between Parking Lots & Buildings (excluding sidewalks) 20' 20' 0' 4. The maximum building height for the various use classifications located within the property are as follows. A. R&D: 35 Feet B. MDO: Not to exceed a height equal to twice the distance from the building to the vertical projection of the center line of the nearest public street; however, no building shall exceed 100' in height, and no building within 300' of the right-of-way of General Booth Boulevard shall exceed 40' in height. C. MXD2: 35 Feet D. Notwithstanding the above, no building or other structure shall exceed the height limit established by the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding air navigation. 5. General Requirements Applicable to all use classifications located within the property. A. Parking Requirements:The minimum number of parking spaces and dimensional requirements on any site shall be as follows: 1. One parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area used for offices. 2. One parking space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area for research and development or one space per employee on the highest working shift, whichever is greater. 3. One parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for commercial/retail. 4. One and one-half parking spaces per hotel room. 5. As required by the City of Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for other uses permitted within the property. 6. The size of parking stalls and handicapped allowances shall be as required by the City of Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 7. The width of parking lot drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet. 8. The color of parking lot stripping shall be white. Special stripping shall be as required by the City of Virginia Beach. 9. These requirements shall be accepted as minimum standards, however, such requirements shall not relieve the site owner or lessor of the responsibility of providing ample on-site parking for actual user demands. Parking on access roads and dedicated streets shall be prohibited. B. Loading Areas 1. Loading docks shall be designed and located so that they are not visible from public roadway view, adjacent residential neighborhood view, and view within the park. The uses of berming and landscape screening shall be employed to screen loading areas. 2. The location of any loading dock areas shall be subject to approval by the Virginia Beach Development Authority. C. Landscape Requirements (Minimum) Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 9 1. The Development Authority will provide in the 75 foot setbacks adjacent to the existing residential neighborhoods of Strawbridge and Princess Anne Hunt Club subdivision a rolling earthen berm (minimum height four(4)feet up to approximately ten (10)feet with appropriate evergreen plantings to provide a buffer between the park and these residential neighborhoods. Where the parking abuts property not currently developed for residential use the Authority will reserve a 75 foot strip of land for the future placement of a berm and evergreen plantings should said adjacent property be developed into residential neighborhoods. 2. The developer of the individual sites shall provide a continuous evergreen and/or low berm screen along any side of a parking lot that abuts a public street right-of-way. Such buffer shall be located within the parking lot setbacks established by Section 3. 3. The developer of any site that abuts a storm water retention lake or canal shall provide a landscape buffer (minimum width 15 feet) between said lake and/or canal and any proposed parking lot. This buffer shall be planted with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen plant materials. 6.The Development Authority shall not extend the existing residential street known as Wandsworth Drive into the property. The Development Authority shall not grant right-of-way over the property for connections into residential neighborhoods not yet developed except those streets so designated on the City of Virginia Beach Master Street and Highway Plan. Roads shall not be extended into Princess Anne Hunt Club subdivision and/or Strawbridge from the property. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as being within the Special Economic Growth Area 3—South Oceana. Portions of the area are impacted by high noise zones, accident potential zones and Navy restrictive easements. All proposed land uses in this area must align with the City's AICUZ provisions and Oceana Land Use Conformity program. Natural & Cultural Resources Impacts The property is within the Southern Rivers Watershed. Drainage in the Southern Rivers watershed is highly impacted by the presence of high ground water, poorly draining soils, and high water surface elevations in downstream receiving waters.There are no known cultural resources on the site. Public Outreach Information Planning Commission • As required by the Zoning Ordinance,the public notice sign(s)was placed on the property on July 12,2021. • As required by State Code,this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot Beacon on Sundays,July 25,2021 and August 1, 2021. • As required by City Code,the adjacent property owners were notified regarding the request and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on July 26,2021. • This Staff report,as well as all reports for this Planning Commission's meeting,was posted on the Commission's webpage of www.vbgov.com/pc on August 5, 2021. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 10 City Council • As required by City Code,this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot Beacon on Sundays, October 3, 2021 and October 10, 2021. • As required by City Code,the adjacent property owners were notified regarding both the request and the date of the City Council's public hearing on October 4,2021. • The City Clerk's Office posted the materials associated with the application on the City Council website of https://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/city-clerk/city-council/Documents/BookmarkedAgenda.pdf on October 15, 2021. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 11 Site Photos ,3,. --• . , k:::-.4,-....,. ,„•,- •• . ‘,... • _ - ,---:•:-',....!, - \i - ,-.., ,-,-,i; • A , ... _.. . - , •,... __ ,1.".;•. : -;- z„, -n• --- ...c' •' .. ' ....., : 14' V1"-''-. .4. a • . a-•'.c:f-a.,-'..."..'"••:';,...1....•• 2! ,.,,,,,1„-,,,,,„ -,....•-1 . • --:---,..,.. .... ..,._.• -,._,,,:-1-4-; ;' ' 3• . .'..s.,-„x•••163.'iV., - . , .?„:,400 _.2 --,-7 .-,..•it,-,...,....i,e...-:1:•,.: ,•,-;w. ,:::-.,,, .-._,..;.•... , .•-,, .:Itt•i-,,,..., -.:...„.•...34,..,..`•!--1_,• ' - ''--'. '- . -_..4,..•.-,-.• ''..,r. • --'- '•.• :..z...:-.7'..Zikg2, ... • „...- -i- ",..1":' -.,.?.'-'',c.; ---.4:.:e+'e..' .....‘1547:e•,..,a'"Ck."--.&.s.--' .' • . -.•'''- i;,-:--.-ELi'. '4..' ,. 7 a .4,rt,-,4':-; t --% 4 ..- '..,a•--." -.' ag'"-".-i.,_,..`•t:a:44y. '. --.... r•4: a".',.....44 • ,'`-'-:•:".,4W-.•--,,,r:47- • ".-7:-_.." -.., ---,79,;4•.4423..• ''''i•-•.'-'2.',X•i*-ii,P? ''''. --• ''''*.!-'t .-.•-,,, -,:. ''.'41'... -..t.' 4 ., ‘.."-`-----• ',.,.:7--tr.F% ' ',.4-•-•-- , ,. . ...g=r-:-i-_--'- ''''-Z'--....101,,,,pt . ,,•-•„-.1;. •,-:'?‘.-- .---,- ..g---- --..._ T.,..- -_‘-,- . - .'„,,...-1...,_;,--;:-.:.:':-',_--;.-&-,..‘1,-..‹, -:-4.------ --. - -. . '....1v ---- .':-',?7• .''''All ---. "44,,,r7,„!a.11*•tr--•-" .n-.., ,-4- • - - -. ,-,;.......... .1. ------ t. , ,..Y-Xts ..-,1,-7,i1- •,... -, c,_.. *1'7. _,_.a. --''. ' 7:4••''' ''`Vsik,', f- A 4-:*'etz.;:Z. - --- •-•.'-'•'• ak4, .-4;4t4.' '.. '-' - ,.......---.• "'a'.--.2-., .. ':..,,lete,- ra;.'".0.,..1k,I,N.; ',.W.s..-'....vp,!•?'4.....-7-5SA,-=.2-Lc,`;',...' , r -... :'-_, _ ,.-,,,. %_,±-•. _ , ..., .... ..........i. 1„..41-,,, ,,,1•_.".,,..,_!...1.,,. =•-...,..-.4„.v,,;.,,,-•,.7.;•_ .-7 -it.44, --''''•-i• .-"id': ' ' ': -1.-..-..;.:-=,- --- ,,,.•: 4" ,k.ici. ,. -','"'•,--- -.-i---.1"',.2...-...4.- - a•--Pr•F' --,-,..,...... i.j,...:"...r--.N. ''.•.4; •,,,,,;,‘,--2....N :. . a .. • r, 0 -. ' , .. t"'"*."....v•`=,,,<E,. .....ii..44stor.:.:7:.: ,.-s. • • •* ..* • - , , .. •. - -- ••• ,, :r",* •—, - 11100"----. . . - • , • . _ : s. --''.-.4* - . . . Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 12 Updated Design Criteria wy,,e, .. . .. ....7..... ?! III II - ` CORPORATE _ � 1 LANDING tfr ,- , ' BUSINESS ,- .. '� r •: , ,! y�aJ:, PARK �; 1 fi :.. l�Y,. ikr jJ .-`., �yje[t' yA n of 't __ , - _ - - -7-7_ - �- ___ _ _, .„, _ ._ -,_ _:.:, - _ __,:gi: CORPORATE LANDING . , BUSINESS PARK ...„----- DESIGN CRITERIA JULY 2021 � VIRGINIA BEACH ' Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 13 Updated Design Criteria 1 1a of t fl r �, r .,_ .. 1 ro . . _ ;,. - + _. .4 am._ _ On April 24, 1990, City of Virginia Beach Economic Development Director Andy Burke, Mayor Meyera Oberndorf and Virginia Beach Development Authority Chairman Van Cunningham turned the first shovels of dirt,officially signaling the beginning of the development at Corporate Landing. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 14 Updated Design Criteria CONTENTS ARTICLE I:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 5 ARTICLE IV:SIGNAGE CRITERIA 17 1.1 CORPORATE LANDING BACKGROUND 4.1 SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS 1.2 DESIGN CRITERIA PURPOSE 4.2 SIGNAGE APPROVAL BY VBDA 1.3 BUSINESS PARK MAP 4.3 TEMPORARY SIGNAGE 1.4 LAND USES 1.5 IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDED BY THE VBDA ARTICLEV:REVIEW BY THEVBDA.........I9 5.1 INTRODUCTION ARTICLE II:SITE CRITERIA 9 5.2 DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES 2.1 APPLICABLE CODES 5.3 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2.2 SETBACKS AND COVERAGE 5.4 SCHEMATIC DESIGNS 2.3 GRADING AND DRAINAGE 5.5 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR 2.4 PARKING SETBACKS FINAL REVIEW 2.5 PARKING REQUIREMENTS 5.6 BASIS OF APPROVAL 2.6 LOADING AND REFUSE 5.7 REVIEW COMMITTEE 2.7 EXTERIOR STORAGE 5.8 REVIEW TIME 2.8 FENCING 5.9 PUBLIC APPROVALS 2.9 UTILITIES 2.10 NON-MOTORIZED CIRCULATION 2.11 PLANTING 2.12 LIGHTING ARTICLE III:BUILDING CRITERIA 15 3.1APPLICABLE CODES 3.2 BUILDING DESIGN AND ORIENTATION 3.3 BUILDING MATERIALS AND COLORS Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 15 Updated Design Criteria Figure/./-Corporate Landtng flawless Park 1994 e - - - - 'Aher .44,'994 >" illko.......•wit ji'''.flia.F=.--‘..... ' ,--41%--' -,_ ji „ '' ne. 40e, AA,. 1. 1,-: 'N- /r. ., 1 , 1 . 4-0 •e. 1.--*'4---I - A • at- • : ,4. . 44441 -3,,,, .„, \ *A -,9t- ,i?<.t414.. • ' ,.,.- - `.40 ts " ' . 6 V - .' • ' ', •,••1C.,IV 46/. .1.; .'4"-•414,,., • ... . ,' ' •A ' ' - 7. . * a ./....-- r•,,- , a . 'X a:. : -'An,,' ..• ' = , , ,,,, :',. • , --'r - -''''. •. . • • ...,• .... •1 op•-, • ,- .„•,‘,, -- '''''' .4. -- .......:.--• , .• a..,,,„. . r ' • - •-• 41= - ••,,. Figure 12-Corporate Landing Business Pork 2008 - ......., = , IR - . • 1 milli* . - tett .2.i i,- • -.• v. , a• -. , - 0,- .• . . -- -1 , .. ' •••*'",-,.. ...-...•••• ' '' NV' ' i ..,;,.., .4-.`"::e • ,• • , • •,••',.i••..14,-.4-L, ' i • -'1-'-:-"•=ia-'I'W,4' , ' . .•••:"• •-•",..,r, ',4•" ' 44A• 4-."‘ * . • :,,„ .r:,41",:r. . i. ....- . i - ..: ;.' , ' )' •• 4 ‘, :: %.k-an,-N. .... .,:iti,. .%, V ...;•Iiir:;`',7' 4 - '•" . - • - .,fug, • ° , t 8;0 :. . f \t, , ' • 10 •...,'''''''''''. i"• ' ... 11;.„..) ) ',., -----• • ? , 7" . , '';; , 'X. B Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 16 Updated Design Criteria ARTICLE I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1.1 CORPORATE LANDING BACKGROUND It is the intent of the Virginia Beach Development Corporate Landing Business Park (the Park) was Authority (VBDA) to continue to encourage the established in 1990 as a planned multi-faceted business construction of attractive quality environs through the park encompassing approximately 325 acres of land. updated design criteria herein. The Park is strategically located five miles from 1-264 on the southwestern side of Naval Air Station Oceana, between General Booth Boulevard and Dam Neck Road. It has a campus-like setting with high quality buildings integrated into a naturally landscaped environment. Corporate Landing Business Park has become the home to a variety of major regional corporate headquarters, including GEICO,Groundworks, and Lockheed Martin. Additionally, in 2018, a cable landing station was -A established to support ultra-high speed transatlantic r fiber optic telecommunication cables.The cable landing station in Corporate Landing provides high capacity, .11 reliable connectivity options to carriers, data centers and colocation facility operators. Figure 1.3-Corporate Landing Business Pork Fountain 1.2 DESIGN CRITERIA PURPOSE The purpose of the design criteria is to provide guidance on land use, site design, building design, landscaping, and signage to ensure a unified, qualitative park environment. The design criteria have ensured that Corporate Landing has developed and maintained an attractive"park-like" setting. Minor modifications have been made to the design criteria on several occasions over the past thirty "r — years but have never been substantially updated.This Figure 1.4-GEICO Regional Headquarters update is needed to: A. Ensure the Corporate Landing Business Park remains relevant for current and future market opportunities, B. Reduce redundancy and better align the document with current codes and requirements 11 ii �rtn 1i C. Consolidate multiple subsequent amendments into one user-friendly and attractive document D. Permit more flexibility with new and innovative materials and construction methods E. Provide more guidance on light industrial and advanced manufacturing building types Figure 1.5-New Realm Brewery Regional Headquarters Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 17 Updated Design Criteria 1.3 BUSINESS PARK MAP Available property in the Park is rated Tier VI shovel ready by the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. Dam Neck Rood tIc . .- -:. - 1..7.:1.-. iti . ' '-4i : l ime. to yr r t l ✓Yy iirk f )1\/ s, r_<\,‘ 's, \ C lmre-* \`‘../:; ova Central Plaza Drive ,¢.$0 (off (Future) do d9P4' a Sowre Nearmap TLegend 0 800 Feet vim,:i Corporate Landing Business Park Limits vllb VBDA Owned Property Jurisdictional Lake/Stormwater Pond —II—. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 18 Updated Design Criteria 1.4 LAND USES The majority of the property in Corporate Landing Development Authority will reserve a 50-footstripof Business Park is zoned I-1 Light Industrial District and land for a future landscape screen.Property owners one property is zoned B-2 Community Business District within the park shall be responsible for maintaining per the Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance as amended. the landscape screen entire length of property. Maintenance shall consist of mowing, weeding, The allowable uses in I-1 and 6-2 zoning are permitted fertilizing and watering of all trees, shrubs and in the Park. Uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit lawn area to maintain healthy plant life. shall seek approval from city Council. The Virginia Beach Development Authority (VBDA), maintains the right to approve the property's use. 1.5 IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDED BY THE VBDA The Corporate Landing Business Park offers the following site improvements provided by Virginia Beach • Development Authority: _ A. Shovel Ready: Available Park properties are rated - Tier VI shovel ready by the Virginia Economic h •-'• CORPORATE Development Partnership. LANDING B. Conduit:The Park offers 2.1 miles of conduit system on Corporate Landing Parkway. It consists of 2 x 8 ra04 (16)4"conduits which include(3)1.25"innerducts I located in each conduit. C. Data Center Certified:The Park is Dominion Energy- certified for data centers. r D. Roadways: Perimeter Parkway, Craft Lane and Corporate Landing Parkway. Figure 1.6-Corporate Landing Park Entrance Sign E. Utilities: Water, electricity, sanitary sewer and conduit shall be provided to within the right-of- way or within an easement adjacent to the right of way.Connections to these major lines will be the responsibility of the site purchaser. F. Signs:The VBDA provides entry signs for the Park 36, and all signage within the public rights-of-ways. G. Landscaping:Landscaping of the common areas at "" the park's entrances with irrigation are provided. ] H. Residential Screening: The Development Authority will provide appropriate plantings in the 50-foot setbacks required adjacent to the existing residential neighborhoods of Red Wing, Dam Neck Estates, and Strawbridge, to provide screening between the park and adjacent residential Figure 1.7-Existing Landscape Screen on Dam Neck Road neighborhoods. Where the park abuts property not currently developed for residential use, the Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 19 Updated Design Criteria Dam Neck Rd 1-74 .tt \ f = al. AB Iiii, tea. • _ �, 7i. .„, , 2,, / ./ /� e4 V Figure 1.8-Existing Conduit Route in the Pork The Park offers 2.1 miles of conduit system consisting of 2 x 8(16) 4 conduits which include(3) 1.25" innerducts located in each conduit. 11 Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 20 Updated Design Criteria ARTICLE II: SITE CRITERIA 2.1 APPLICABLE CODES for Corporate Landing and each individual site A. Development of VBDA owned property within drainage plans per the applicable codes. Corporate Landing is governed by the following 2.4 PARKING SETBACKS requirements and restrictions of but not limited to: the following chart lists the minimum parking lot 1. The recorded Zoning Proffers of the VBDA setback requirements in the Corporate Landing 2. The City of Virginia Beach Public Works Design Business Park. Standards Manual, as amended,and Minimum Parking Lot Setback Requirements 3. TheCityofVirginiaBeachZoningandSubdivision Dam Neck Road 50 Feet ordinances, as amended. Adjacent to Residential 50 Feet Neighborhoods B. It is the responsibility of the individual site General Booth Boulevard 30 Feet developer to verify and conform with all requirements of governing agencies and obtain Corporate Landing Parkway 25 Feet and maintain all necessary permits during the Other Public Streets 20leet development of the property. Side&Rear Property Line 15 Feet Ai Between Parking Lots and 10 Feet Buildings(excluding sidewalks) 2.2 SETBACKS AND COVERAGE The following chart lists the site requirements,beyond 2.5 PARKING REQUIREMENTS those required for 11 and B2 zoning, for minimum lot area,building setbacks,and coverage for the Corporate A. Off-street parking requirements must conform to Landing Business Park. Section 203 of the Zoning Ordinance as amended. Site Requirements B. The City's parking requirements shall not relieve Minimum Lot Area 1.0 Acre the site owner or lessor of the responsibility of providing ample on-site parking for actual user Minimum Building Setback 50 Feet demands. Parking on access roads and dedicated Dam Neck Road streets shall be prohibited. Minimum Building Setback SO Feet Adjacent to Residential C. Parking lot landscape standards shall conform Neighborhoods to the City of Virginia Beach Landscape Guide as Maximum Building and Paved 65% amended. Area Coverage 2.6 LOADING AND REFUSE 2.3 GRADING AND DRAINAGE All loading docks and dumpster areas that are visible A. the site grading of each individual building site from the lake area or street right-of-ways shall be shall be done in a manner complimentary and screened with a wall a minimum of 8'tall that matches the materials used on the building. Dumpsters shall compatible with the adjacent sites. also be gated.The appearance of the screen wall shall B. The utilization of best land management and also be softened in its entirety with shrubs and trees. the stormwater management practices shall The extent of the screen wall and landscaping shall be be incorporated into the master drainage plan subject to VBDA approval,see figures 2.2 and 2.3. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 21 Updated Design Criteria 2.7 EXTERIOR STORAGE Except for permanent facility construction, exterior storage is not permitted in the Corporate Landing '► Business Park. Construction facilities and materials shall not be permitted within the front yards and when located in rear yards, shall be removed immediately max: upon completion of the permanent facility. 2.8 FENCING --�--- , A. Fencing beyond screening is not permitted in the Park except for where it is necessary to the physical security of certain facilities or necessary to funnel Figure 2.1-Existing building and parking in the Pork visitors to designated entry points. B. Fencing should be limited to side and rear yards and coupled with planting.When fencing fronts any primary public roadways it should be located behind a landscape screen,making the plantings the most visible feature from the street or adjacent parcels. Fencing in front yards should be decorative use only and should not visually obstruct the building. Durable,high quality materials are required for the fencing that compliment the building materials. C. VBDA shall approve all proposed fences for material, color,location,coupled plantings and overall impact. Figure 22-Existing loading area screen in the Park 2.9 UTILITIES A. All utility connections, including all electrical and fiber connections and installations of wires to buildings shall be made underground from the nearest available power source. During installation there shall be no open cuts in any street at any time.No electric meter,gas meter or other meters of any type or other apparatus shall be located on — any power pole nor hung on the outside of any building, but shall be placed at grade or within the building served. If placed at grade outside the building such devices shall be screened with evergreen plants. ` Figure 2.3-Existing dumpster screen in the Park Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 22 Updated Design Criteria B. All site utilities such as transformers, meters, cooling towers and heat pumps shall be screened :;'••''' • in their entirety with evergreen shrubs. Minimum } ::'. height of shrubs at installation shall be 3'to 4'with "' • •;..•• r ••, spacing not to exceed 3'on center,see figures 2.4 ./•-• •.• +'•' • ; and 2.5. �►� ':'.`'::-"• '"•`i t dR wr en vi►. • var.'.•a.., w111111i1,e4 2.10 NON-MOTORIZED CIRCULATION Each developer or owner of a site shall construct public t▪ ;• I11�1W ���• " sidewalks and trails that pass through their property {▪ ' . t In 5te 3 RMMULCH WITH H or properties per Figure 2.6 the Non-Motorized ' • . SOL SEPARATOR Circulation Master Plan. • " r' � EN SHRUB MASS AS REQUIRED BY THE UTILITY CO. Figure 24-Example transformer screening plan TRANSFORMER 10'MN. Mir rerv,e-,2 615.3 EVERGREEN SHRUB MASSING 3'TO 4'HEIGHT AT INSTALLATION Figure 2.5-Example transformer screening elevation Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 23 Updated Design Criteria Figure 2.6-Non-Motorized Circulation Master Plan •.w. Darn Neck Roan y I ` 9e ,ete(Pa sy s „ si , _,..4 ,4 i 4 a' a,' '`L n s -t 4. • oIf oo Each developer or owner of a site o shall construct public sidewalks ''' o and trails that pass through their , property or properties per the ',- Non-Motorized Circulation Master i4, Plan and in accordance with City of �,S Croft La Virginia Beach Standards. t : r to Central Plaza Drive e. to (Future) Sao nB ay P'Po oa i Source:Neaarrup 1 T18 Legend 0 800 Feet `10.00.21 ——- Existing Multi-Use Paths VI1' — Future Multi-Use Paths V VBDA Owned Property II Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 24 Updated Design Criteria 2.11 PLANTING SHADE TREE (TYPICAL) FLOWERING TREE (TYPICAL) A. Corporate Landing is intended to have a park setting with a strong emphasis on the landscaped !4 �yY environment. This emphasis will provide an {� �jj�` �♦ �!j,�� 1 overall visual continuity throughout the park and `j /E1 tlf�� a....- _ �-' will serve as a backdrop for the development of y; ;�. d�&, wo*� each individual site. During the individual site ;�� � ,j �i: f development stage, the landscape architect �; J�N shall give careful consideration and analysis to 4 ��w`4 01 0 ♦;troll. respond to surroundingsite components such ( I`\/.: ��� !�j as site context,open space,landmarks,views and i4� 3)♦ I—I, v o� , vistas, streetscapes and the protection of existing I ��♦ a, i ' vegetation. '1 Al: imp Aim .„ ' �. 8. In addition to adherence to the City of Virginia �i�,,1 ���„ 12�`♦� a Beach Landscape Ordinance for plant species, 1'►,��i �� .j�i�7( parking lot and foundation landscaping, screening '�►' �� �:��r� / din and tree planting specification and standards,the �� �� a`. following additional requirements shall apply to the MEDIAN EVERGREEN Corporate Landing Business Park: SHIM, MASSING 1. Protection of Existing Vegetation: Site Figure 27-Example d Entry Drive Planting Plan Note: The landscape Divide architect shall respond to all visibility developer, through sensitive grading and triangle requirements for intersections. drainage plans, shall save stands of natural vegetation 15'outside of all proposed building walls and 5' outside of all paved areas. The EVERGREEN SHIM COIl building developer shall identify, "flag", and s �.; ..,�. barricade up to the tree dripline such stands - t 1`'� ��., t prior to site clearingor gradingoperations. �, ��,` ♦ii Storage of materials or equipment shall -- Nu-;4�:rf0' !i,►�%�—� not be allowed within these barriers during 61.1tconstruction and barriers shall not be removed �����Igo ilt, �fear until finish grading of sites has been completed. 1((,•1I( . „ !:` All City of Virginia Beach and State of Virginia R ,I0 � Tree Protection Notes are applicable and shall • r, ...1 fb.1 be enforced. f 1, 2. Sod rather than seeding is required within 50' `��• 4814 ' I •V:► of all buildings; all adjoining roads shall have 1!S' �,�:� ��;� 'I�_ sod along the entire property line from the road , � 1►i /1�--� . edge to the parking lot edge. The minimumit��E�4':1 V r �I+� „isy Aiiiti width of sod along road edges where there is - . �f ._ no parking lot shall be 30'.All other lawn areas �� CONTINUOUS EVERGREEN HEDGE 30"HT �� not receiving sod may be seeded. SPACED 3'ON CENTER AT INSTALLATION Figure 2.8-Example Entry Drive Planting Plan Note: The landscape architect shall respond to all visibility triangle requirements for intersections. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 25 Updated Design Criteria 3. All site entry drives shall be well landscaped each case where this is applicable, the user with a combination of shade trees, flowering shall obtain approval from the VBDA at the trees,and flower beds,see figures 2.7 and 2.8. construction document approval stage. 4. All planting bed areas shall be covered with a D. Lighting in all parking lots, walkways, and 3"layer of shredded hardwood mulch. signage on buildings shall be LED.Lighting levels 5. All plant material,topsoil,mulch,fertilizers,etc. in parking lots shall be a minimum 0.5 foot shall be subject to VBDA approval. Rejected candles. Light spillage onto adjacent properties materials shall be removed from the site. and the right of way shall be minimized. 6. Street trees shall be placed along all roadways, E. Accent lighting of buildings, landscaping and within the right of way,which properties abut signage is encouraged. or adjoin.One tree shall be provided for every F. All lighting adjacent to residential areas will 35' of property line that adjoins or abuts the be placed in such a way to prevent glare or roadway. If applicable, existing street trees on overflow lighting into these areas. adjoining properties shall be located and shown G. Point-by-point photometric calculations with a on all landscape planting plans.The spacing of summary statistics table shall be submitted for all new required street trees shall tie into all project sites.Calculations shall includefixture existing trees, maintaining a maximum spacing schedules or details indicating all aesthetic, of 35' on center. electrical, and luminous characteristics of the 7. Shade trees and/or flowering trees shall be proposed lighting systems. provided in front of the buildings as approved by VBDA. 8. Each site developed shall have an automatic irrigation system to irrigate all new trees, shrubs, seeded areas & sodded areas up to - the property line and to any road edges which they adjoin or front. The irrigation system • shall be designed to provide the proper water --- requirements to maintain healthy plant life. 2.12 LIGHTING Corporate Landing Business Park has a uniform lighting system for exterior lighting. Fixtures and poles shall be approved by the VBDA. The following lighting requirements apply: 21: �f A. Parking light fixtures shall be a maximum height • j • 5.. y. •• =. of 30'. B. Low bollard fixtures or landscape lighting is �1 R recommended for walks and building entries. E— [ "7" C. The use of full cut-off fixtures for general - illumination is required. Designs to meet Dark Sky compliance are encouraged. Building • mounted floods will not be permitted, except Figure 2.9 Standard Park Light in completely internalized service courts. In Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 26 Updated Design Criteria ARTICLE III: BUILDING CRITERIA 3.1 APPLICABLE CODES articulation such as cornices, expression of A. Buildings within Corporate Landing are governed by structural or architectural bays, recessed the following requirements and restrictions but not windows or doors,material or material module limited to: changes, color and/or texture differences. Continuity of design is encouraged on the side 1. The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and rear faces.Flat,monolithic or unarticulated (USBC), facades are discouraged. 2. The recorded Zoning Proffers of the VBDA, 3. For large buildings, varying horizontal and 3. The Cityof Virginia Beach Zoning and Subdivision vertical elements should be employed to help ordinances, as amended,and organize the building mass. In addition to 4. The City of Virginia Beach Public Works Design material changes, breaking the footprint of a Standards Manual, as amended. large building into smaller parts and varying a B. It is the responsibility of the individual site building's height and facade design can reduce developer to verify and conform with all the appearance of blank walls. requirements of governing agencies and obtain and maintain all necessary permits during the 3.3 BUILDING MATERIALS AND COLOR development of the property. A. Exterior building materials shall be of types 3.2 BUILDING DESIGN AND ORIENTATION that are durable and permanent in quality and appearance. Exterior finishes should require A. CorporateLandingoffersthehighestqualityof design little or no maintenance. Colors, materials, and and creativity in the Park's building construction. finishes are to be coordinated in a consistent manner In order to ensure the development of a harmonious on all elevations. Recommended architectural corporate environment, the following design materials include glass, granite, concrete, brick parameters have been established: and metal.Additional building facade requirements include: 1. The building concept for the Park is to set buildings in a landscaped environment that 1. The use of metal panels for light industrial maintains an aesthetic continuity throughout. facilities is acceptable as long as the front face(s) Each designer is encouraged to express and main entry of the building includes at least individuality and creativity while blending his one additional complimentary material and the or her design into the site's surrounding metal on the side and rear is layered and varied. context. The general design context should 2. Glazing shall be reflective enough to prevent reflect a high quality, modern, corporate vision from the exterior to the inside during image. Colonial or historical designs shall not daylight hours. Reflective glazing shall have a be permitted. All designs are subject to the shading coefficient of.20 to.30. VBDA's approval. It is intended that the basic harmony of the Park's architecture shall prevail 3. All roof-top mechanical equipment, shall be so that no building shall detract from the enclosed or screened by opaque glass, metal attractiveness of the overall environment. or masonry, so as to be an integral part of the architectural design and not visible from 2. Buildings should be oriented toward the public adjacent public streets. street and the front face(s), at a minimum, should incorporate higher levels of architectural s Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 27 Updated Design Criteria 4. Exposed louvers, similar metal panel inserts, or penthouse enclosures are to be painted to match the predominant color on the building. 5. In order to maintain aesthetic continuity within the Park, bright overall colors shall not be permitted. However, bright colors are encouraged to enhance focal points and serve as accents,such as main entrances and shall be as approved by the VBDA. 111, 144 ■ ‘1•I.0, %YHItS ■ - . 1d .a r_ - ierrr Figure 3.1-Light industrial Building in Loveland,CO Figure 3.3-Existing Corporate Landing business with accent Large building with varying horizontal and vertical elements, colors and enhanced main entry unifying materials and enhanced facade articulation at the main entry. Image Source:Danny Dodge • Figure 32-Warehouse/Assembly Building in Toccoa,GA Figure 3.4-Side and reor face continuity of existing multistory Multiple complimentary materials and architectural accents are Corporate Landing office building required for the front face(s)and main entry of large facilities Image Source Kerby Building Systems,LLC s - - Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 28 Updated Design Criteria ARTICLE IV: SIGNAGE CRITERIA 4.1 SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS C. Maintenance of all signs shall be required by all All signage in the Corporate Landing Business Park tenant/owners. Signs shall be kept cleaned and must comply with the Sign Regulations of City of painted as required to maintain the state of quality Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance as amended. that existed at the time of installation In addition, the following sign regulations apply: 4.3 TEMPORARY SIGNAGE A. Menu board type signs shall not be permitted. A. No temporary signs will be permitted except as B. Plastic letters shall not be permitted for building described below(see figure 4.2). mounted signs. 1. Temporary construction signs shall be permitted C. The size,location on the facade,color and finish during the construction of the permanent of the letters or logo shall be compatible with facility and shall be removed upon issuance the building architecture. of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City of D. Care shall be taken to conceal all conduits, Virginia Beach. raceways and transformers from all signage 2. All temporary signs shall be ground mounted. so that they are not be visible under any circumstances. 3. One project construction sign shall be permitted and shall be located parallel to the E. Street names on the building are not permitted. street and shall include only:the Building Name; Numbered addresses shall not be backlit. Developer; Architect; Landscape Architect; F. In multi-tenant buildings where storefront Consulting Engineers; General Contractor; entrances are used, sign information shall be Major Tenants;and Lending Institution limited to company name, company logo, and 4. No subcontractor signs shall be permitted. suite number(see figure 4.1). The temporary construction sign outlined above shall be a maximum of ten (10) feet high and 4.2 SIGNAGE APPROVAL BY VBDA located within the property line and adjacent A. Final design of all building signage shall be as to the construction trailer. approved by the VBDA. Proposed signage shall be 5. No construction signs will be permitted off site submitted with the construction details for each 6. One real estate sign shall be permitted per building prior to their submission to the City of building and shall be allowed for six months. Virginia Beach.The sign submittal must include: Following this period, additional approval 1. Sign elevation, shall be obtained from the VBDA. 2. Site plan with location of proposed signage, 3. Shop drawings outlining construction details and lighting,and 4. Planting plan for area surrounding signage. B. Violation and/or non-compliance with the above procedures will allow the VBDA to remove the non-conforming sign at the expense of the owner/ tenant. 111 Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 29 Updated Design Criteria �_ A �► c .I --- i 1 � i ilk 50% COPY AREA MAX. T i---- ---T- 25% CLEAR MN. III • �� ' li IN9II' r��� I 111I Figure 4.7-Single Tenant Sign On A Building The above drawing is an example illustration of the placement of a single tenant name. NOTES: 4..0' t 1)Front and back of plywood sign face and wood to be painted. 2)Signs can be rotated as desired. !err. rBUILDNG NAME _ _— 3/4"TREATED PLYWDCO l LOGO,ETC. mce C' ;'COPY AREAN t 4'_trrw. t 1 o DEVELOPERS O NAME,LOGO,ETC. o 4 L J I • 00 O A ' ARCHITECT >' REALTORS NAME cc LANDSCAPE ARCEITECT b LOGO,ETC. = CONSULTING ENGINEER a GENERAL CONTRACTOR MAJOR TENANTS i LFINANCIAL NSTITUTION_1 / I- _' Irv. o--, —r-1 r--- b J r—'—I—I rT i 1-1-1r� Lr, r-r-I(( 1-7-1 r-ri Ln r-r-' �.� , r , r.S__ L-4" X 4"TREATED WOOD POST. 4"TREATED WDOD SLATS FOOTING AS REWIRED-TYPICAL EQUALLY SPACED RO GROUND TEMPORARY SIGN REALTOR SIGN Figure 4.2-Temporary and Realtor Signage ■ Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 30 Updated Design Criteria ARTICLE V: REVIEW BY THE VBDA 5.1 INTRODUCTION 1. Schematic Design and A. Corporate Landing is governed by a series of 2. Construction Documents recorded covenants which are available upon B. Final approved City of Virginia Beach site plan request by any developer or owner interested documents shall be submitted to the VBDA before in Corporate Landing. These covenants and construction begins. restrictions are in place to ensure the proper and most appropriate development of the Park through the implementation of uniform standards. 5A SCHEMATIC DESIGNS Furthermore, all pertinent requirements of public At schematic/preliminary review,the following material agencies shall be followed in the development shall be submitted: of this property and all plans for development of a specific site shall be approved by the VBDA and A. Site Plan at a minimum scale of 1"=40'-0" approved by the City of Virginia Beach and public B. Site coverage ratio:building and paving agencies having jurisdiction. C. Building location, overall dimensions, height, B. The requirements contained in this criteria do finish floor elevations setback lines not preclude the potential of later modifications. Each buyer shall be responsible for verification of D. Site circulation all code requirements at the time of purchase and E. Site signage location development. F. Anticipated stormwater management practices G. Amount and location of employee and guest 5.2 DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES parking A. Prior to commencement of the development of any H. Location of any loading and trash collection project design, the project owner and the design areas professionals are required to participate in an I. Location of walks and driveways introduction to Corporate Landing Design Criteria with VBDA's design representative. J. Building floor plans at a minimum scale of 1/8"=1'-0" B. Prior to the commencement of any site K. Elevations(1/8"=1'-0"or 1/16"=1'-0")in color improvements such as construction or alteration of buildings,enclosures, paving,grading, drainage, or with color samples or any other permanent improvements on any L. Perspective rendering site,the owner, leasee or occupant of any site M. Building materials specification list shall first submit Plans and Specifications for such N. Location and size of all exterior mechanical and improvements to the VBDA for its written approval. electrical equipment both at grade and/or on the roof. 5.3 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS O. Preliminary review shall be concerned with A. Three (3) complete sets of plans shall be building materials, colors and finishes, submitted for each review. Three (3) sets shall architectural treatment and rooflines. be retained for the VBDA's files. Plans shall be submitted to the VBDA at the following stages of planning and design: Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 31 Updated Design Criteria 5.5 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR FINAL 0. After approval of the contract documents by the REVIEW VBDA, any change in exterior materials or exterior A. The following completed construction document colors during construction, shall be approved material shall be submitted for final review: by the VBDA prior to ordering of materials. 1. Building construction drawings indicating 5.7 REVIEW COMMITTEE all exterior finishes, colors and proposed screening of roof-top equipment. Actual size The Review Committee shall be composed of the of equipment shall be indicated behind screen. VBDA's Department of Economic Development arm; The previously submitted colored elevations the VBDA's architectural, engineering, and landscape and the exterior building material sample board architectural consultants,which herein afterward shall which were submitted for preliminary review be referred to as"the Staff." shall be resubmitted again with the construction A. Staff shall be entitled to approve minor variations drawings. to those portions of the Design Criteria not 2. Full civil site plan and utility packages, at a encompassed by the zoning proffers of record minimum scale of 1"=25'-0". affecting the property. 3. Full landscape design package, at a minimum B. The VBDA shall receive comments and scale of 1"-25'-0". recommendations from the Staff as to whether 4. Full site lighting, signage and any loading area the plans submitted should be approved or and trash collection area construction details. rejected. C. When questions of judgment or interpretation B. Approval of plans must be given by the VBDA prior arise, the decision of the VBDA is final and to commencement of any construction. binding on all parties. D. Any revisions, additions, or alterations to any 5.6 BASIS OF APPROVAL portion of approved plans shall be subject to A. Review and approval will be based on standards set review and approval. forth in the Declaration and the Design Criteria. E. Neither Corporate Landing or the VBDA or Plans will be reviewed not only for the quality its successors or assigns shall be liable in of the specific proposal, but also the project's damages to anyone submitting plans to them effect and impact on its neighbors and on the for approval, or to any owner or occupant general park character. Evaluation will be made of of land affected by this Declaration, by spatial relationships among and between buildings reason of mistaken judgment negligence or and other surrounding elements.Careful concern misfeasance arising out of or in connection will be given to location and treatment of utility with the approval or disapproval or failure and service facilities with the intent of minimizing to approve any such plans. Every person, detrimental visual and environmental impact. corporation, partnership,or organization who B. Site ingress and egress shall be reviewed for efficient submits plans to the VBDA or Declarator for flow of traffic within the site and on abutting streets. approval agrees, by the submission of such C. If plans and specifications are not sufficiently plans, and every owner or occupant of any of se are otherwise inadequate, the property agrees by acquiring title thereto complete equate, the VBDA or an interest therein, that he, she or shall reject them as being inadequate.Approval of design will begood for a one(1) it will not bring any action, proceeding or suit g year period,after against the VBDA or Declarator to recover any which time, if construction has not started the such damages. building developer will be required to resubmit. 1111 Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 32 Updated Design Criteria 5.8 REVIEW TIME The VBDA shall receive proposals for review, a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the second Tuesday of each month.The review comments shall be available from the VBDA office within two weeks of that second Tuesday. 5.9 PUBLIC APPROVALS A. The Applicant is responsible for complying with all applicable requirements of public agencies in the development of site(s) within Corporate Landing and shall make separate submittals to City of Virginia Beach review agencies.The Applicant may make concurrent submittals to both the VBDA and the City. B. Although based on local zoning and subdivision regulations, the Corporate Landing Design Criteria may be more restrictive in land use,site development standards, landscape requirements, or in other matters. In every case in which these criteria are at variance with public agency requirements,the more restrictive regulations shall govern. In the event of any inconsistency between the Deed and the Design Criteria, the provisions of the Deed shall control. C. The property owner is solely responsible for complying with all aspects of the Design Criteria, as well as all applicable codes and regulations. No variance from any aspect of the Design Criteria will be permitted unless approved in writing by the VBDA. If non-compliance to the Design Criteria is discovered during or after construction, it shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner to rectify all non-complying conditions at his or her expense to the satisfaction of the VBDA. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 33 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement Co of viyinw Bwdt Planning&Community _ - Development The disclosures contained in this form are necessary to inform public officials who may vote on the application as to whether they have a conflict of interest under Virginia law. The completion and submission of this form is required for all applications that pertain to City real estate matters or to the development and/or use of property in the City of Virginia Beach requiring action by the City Council or a City board,commission or other body. Applicant Disclosure Applicant Name Virginia Beach Development Authority Does the applicant have a representative? II Yes ❑ No • If yes,list the name of the representative. VHB,John D.Hines Is the applicant a corporation,partnership,firm,business,trust or an unincorporated business?❑Yes I No • If yes,list the names of all officers,directors,members,trustees,etc.below. (Attach a list if necessary) • If yes,list the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary=or affiliated business entity2 relationship with the applicant. (Attach a list if necessary) "Parent-subsidiary relationship"means"a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,VA.Code§2.2-3101. 2"Affiliated business entity relationship"means"a relationship,other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or(iii)there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities,resources or personnel on a regular basis;or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code§2.2-3101. 1I Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 34 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement cay of Balch Planning&Community Development Known Interest by Public Official or Employee Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action?❑Yes II No • If yes,what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Applicant Services Disclosure 1. Does the applicant have any existing financing(mortgage,deeds of trust,cross-collateralization,etc)or are they considering any financing in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? ❑Yes • No • If yes,identify the financial institutions providing the service. 2. Does the applicant have a real estate broker/agent/realtor for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property? ❑Yes • No • If yes,identify the company and individual providing the service. 3. Does the applicant have services for accounting and/or preparation of tax returns provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes MI No • If yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. 4. Does the applicant have services from an architect/landscape architect/land planner provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes .No • If yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. 5. Is there any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property?0 Yes ® No • If yes,identify the purchaser and purchaser's service providers. Revised 11 09.2020 2 I Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 35 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement Planning&Community Development 6. Does the applicant have a construction contractor in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes IN No • If yes,identify the company and individual providing the service. 7. Does the applicant have an engineer/surveyor/agent in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?IX)Yes 0 No • If yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. VHB, John. D. Hines 8. Is the applicant receiving legal services in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes ® No • If yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. Applicant Signature I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing,I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission,Oty Council,VBDA,CBPA,Wetlands Board or any public body or committee In connection with this application. It( Applicant re l _ca u r C ticr I r U,t y ,a aea\ v'e Lovievif Aaikoirt-t� Print Name and Title ���► I .��aoa Date Is the applicant also the owner of the subject property? ®Yes 0 No • If yes,you do not need to fill out the owner disclosure statement FOR CITY USE ONLY/All disclosures must be updated two(2)weeks prior to any Planning Commission and City Council meeting that pertains to the applications rso changes•s of 61 2021.09.28 Sip.tur• vdetwm. Hoa N.Dao Revised 11.09.2020 3 I P a E e Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 36 Disclosure Statement Disclosure StatementNi3 Planning&Commu '� Owner Disclosure �} Owner Name �11iCviCt_ n ,.. T 1)t(0rkv_2d1t ►`�U144,6( , lj Applicant Name Is the Owner a corporation,partnership,firm,business,trust or an unincorporated business?❑Yes 0 No • If yes,list the names of all officers,directors,members,trustees,etc.below. (Attach a list if necessary) • If yes,list the businesses that have a parent-subsidlary3 or affiliated business entity`relationship with the Owner. (Attach a list if necessary) Known Interest by Public Official or Employee Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action?❑Yes No • If yes,what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? "Parent-subsidiary relationship"means"a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,VA.Code§2.2-3101. "Affiliated business entity relationship"means"a relationship,other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or(iii)there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered In determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities,resources or personnel on a regular basis;or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code§2.2-3101. Revised 11.09.2020 5 I P a g e Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 37 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement \43 11vinio Rae- Planning&Community Development Owner Services Disclosure 1. Does the Owner have any existing financing(mortgage,deeds of trust,cross-collateralization,etc)or are they considering any financing in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? ❑Yes alNo • I'yes,identify the financial institutions providing the service. 2. Does the Owner have a real estate broker/agent/realtor for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property? Cl Yes Ia.No • If yes,identify the company and individual providing the service. 3. Does the Owner have services for accounting and/or preparation of tax returns provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes I71 No • if yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. 4. Does the Owner have services from an architect/landscape architect/land planner provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?lia Yes L(No • If yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. 5. Is there any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property?CI Yes tit No • If yes,identify the purchaser and purchaser's service providers. 6. Does the Owner have a construction contractor in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes W No • If yes,identify the company and individual providing the service. 7. Does the Owner have an engineer/surveyor/agent in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?0 Yes ❑ No • If yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. U 0 John D. Hines Wag, Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 38 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement \13 Planning&Community Development "'s.'""-,,,,...\ 8. Is the Owner receiving legal services in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes (Q No • If yes,Identify the firm and Individual providing legal the service. Owner Signature I certify that all of the Information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing,I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission,City Council,VBDA,CBPA,Wetlands Board or any public body or committee In connection with this application. n sima Owner Lisa. M Lkir p lz C kt i t i rq i vuci.B e CedA bejLI fa tk Print Name and Title 1 i 1m V ifti t \fv't I 4 c9001 I Date I Revised 11.09.2020 7 I P a g e Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 39 Disclosure Statement i - _ •cot - �3.• rCy. Owner 9lsclowre G Owner Name (lw,pd/Ls.L Applicant Name /+eni4% /f iP telid A,V FRi1NC% L//n•L/.e Is the Owner a corporation,partnership,funs,business,trust or en unincorporated business?(3 T25est? 0 No • If yes,hit the names of all officers,directors,members,trustees,etc.below.(Attach a fist if necessary) Aide•co bl/;w'- Avit.4 iO st.O1 N • If yes,list the businesses diet have a parent-subsidlary'or affiliated business entity'reladonshIs with the Owner,(Attach a list if necessary) Known Interest bV Public Official or EmolOYee Does an offidel or employee of the City of Vlrghtla Beast)have an Interest in the subject Land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action?0 Yes NO • If yes,what is the name of the o'ficlal or employee and what is the nature of the interest? •'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 corporatbon.-See State and Local Government Conflctt of Interests Act,VA.Code 4 2.2-3101. •"Affiliated business entity relationship"means"a relationship,other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(I)one business entity has a controlling ownership Interest In the other business entity,(II)a control ing owner in one entity Is also a contro:ling owner in the other entity,or fill)there Is shared management or control between the business entities.Factors that should be oorslderec In determining the eels:ente of an affiliated business entity relatiorshlp Include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two enthxs;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 an a regular basis;or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities.'See State and Lola Government Conflict of interests Act,Va. Code S 2.2-3101. Revised i].09.2020 SIP age Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 40 Disclosure Statement r Owner Services p)sclosure 1. Does the Owner have any e>isdrtg ftnandng(mortgage,deeds of trust,crocs.cotlateraliration,etc)or are they cansiderlrtg any finncing In�c`'nedton with the subject of the application or any business operating or to tie apeested on the property? ❑Yes kit No • If yes,Identity the fnantial instiwticns providing the service. 2. Does the Own r have a real estate broker/agent/ranker for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property? ❑Yes HAI No • If yes,identify the company and individual providing the service. 3. Does the Owner have services for accounting and/or preparation of t.an returns prov de In cornett ion with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes IgNo • If yes,identify the fern and individual providing the service. 4. Does the Owner have services from an architect/landscape arddttst/tand planner provided connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?0 Yes No • If yes,Identify the fern and individual providing the service. 5. Is there any other pending or proposed purchaser of the sublect property?❑Yes lJ No • if yes,Identify the purchaser and purchaser's service providers 6. Does the Owner have a cenctrudion contract?,In connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes Ell No • If yes,Identify the company end Individual providing the service. 7. Does the Owner have an m(meer/surveyor/agettt In connection with the subject of the appgution or any business operating or to be operated on the property?0 Yes .N-.!No • if yes,identify the firm and individual providing the service. Revised 11.09.2020 6 j P a g e Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 41 Disclosure Statement �=�z __ B. Is the Owner receiving legal services In co, nectlon with the subject of tho application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?a Yes a No • K yes,identify the firm and individual providing lega:the service. Owner Signature I certify that all of the information contained ir.this Disclosure Statement Forte is complete,true,and accurate.I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the applintlon has been scheduled for pail(hearing,I am responsible for updating the Worm/bon provided hereto two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission,City Council,VBDA,CIPA,Wetlands board or any pubbbttccc body or wrranittee in connection with this application. Owner Signature /CosLi:' ieiPdc' .46, , j7sr.r4,c, A91 Print Name and Title / Date Revised 11.09.2020 7 j P a g e Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 42 Next Steps • Upon receiving a recommendation from Planning Commission,this request will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. Staff will inform the applicant and/or their representative of the date of the hearing in the upcoming days. • Following City Council's decision,the applicant will receive a decision letter from Staff. • Once the conditions of approval are in place and/or completed,the applicant must contact the Zoning Division of the Planning Department to obtain verification that the conditions have been met. Contact the Zoning Division at 757-385-8074. • If the request requires land disturbance and/or a subdivision of property, please contact the Development Services Center(DSC)to discuss next steps for site plan/plat review. Contact the DSC at 757-385-4621 or the Development Liaison Team at 757-385-8610. • Please note that 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 approvals allowed by this application 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. Virginia Beach Development Authority Agenda Item 8 Page 43 Corporate Landing Business Park Design Criteria Update Detailed List of Changes Description of Change(s) Existing 1998 July 2021 Design Design Criteria Criteria Reference Reference Page Page Number(s) Number(s) Rewrote Introduction and added aerials and existing 1-2 2-6 images Eliminated established land uses within the Park and 3-8 7 aligned permitted uses with current 11 and B2 zoning Edited the Improvements Provided by VBDAto include 9-10 7-8 shovel ready designation,conduit systems,data center certification and new roadways. Eliminated rolling earthen berms from residential landscape setbacks,and reduced the setbackfrom 75'to 50'.Added existing illustrative images and conduit map. Updated the location map,and eliminated the master plan 11-13 6 and master land use plan. Applicable codes have been updated to current standards 14 9 Building setbacks aligned more with 11 (30')and B2(35') 14-15 9 zoning setback requirements along General Booth Blvd., consolidation of separate land use designations, reduced building setback along Damn Neck Road from 100'to 50', and reduced building setback adjacent to residential neighborhoods from 75'to 50' to bring it closer to I-1 landscape screening and buffering requirements at 25' (Appx. A, Article 10, Sec. 1003 (a)). A landscape screen is still required within the setback area. Parking lot setbacks aligned more with I-1 zoning setback 17-18 9 requirements,consolidation of separate land use designations, reduced parking lot setbacks along Dam Neck Road from 75'to 50',Adjacent to residential neighborhoods from 75'to 50',Corporate Landing Parkway from 40' to 25',Other public streets, 50'to 25', and between parking lots and buildings (excluding sidewalks) 20'to 10'. Site criteria updated to align more and reduce redundancy 16, 17, 19, 20 9-10 with current zoning code, building codes, landscape guide and public works standards and added illustrative imagery. Revised design criteria to permit fencing with exceptions. 20 10 Revised former "Jogging Trails"section and map to non- 22 &Addendum 11-12 motorized circulation. (2) pg. 11 Revised landscape section to reduce redundancy with 23-38 13-14 zoning code and Landscape Guide. Updated site furnishings and lighting guidance and images 39& 44 14 1 Revised building criteria to provide more guidance on light 56-58 15-16 industrial and advanced manufacturing building types including more permitted building materials and facade articulation and orientation guidance for large facilities Aligned signage criteria more with current zoning ordinance 45-55 17-18 and eliminated sign details since park signs already exist. Key exhibit and table comparisons. Corporate Landing 1990 Master Plan I Corporate Landing 2021 Business Park Map / / I �. Alirt: `` e * Wit`--- P%T — ' - y Kia ' l/ , i_ it1/4 N • AI \ ;:77 01 : � p t 4r'� fI J�r +r - r'} !.:--. rr- T r r , eernd "qa•,; Co po.:.a+d q Suvts vadt l nm vhb AIDA Owned Property CURRENT DESIGN UPDATED CURRENT II ZONING CRITERIA DESIGN CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS SETBACKS: Min. building setback Dam Neck 100 ft. 50 ft. 30 ft. Rd. Min. building setback adjacent to 75 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft. Residential Neighborhoods Min. building and parking lot 75 ft. 30 ft.for 11/ 35 30 ft.for 11/ 35 ft. setback General Booth Blvd. ft.for B2 for B2 Min. parking lot setback Corporate 50ft. 25 ft. 10' per Landscape Landing Parkway Guide Other Public Streets 50 ft. 20 ft. 10'per Landscape Guide 2 Min. parking lot setbackside& 15 ft. 15 ft. 0 ft. rear Property Line Between Parking Lots and 10 ft. 10 ft. 0 ft. Buildings 10 ft. (excluding sidewalks) PARKING: CURRENT DESIGN CRITERIA UPDATED DESIGN CRITERIA • One parking space for each 250 square feet of gross • Off-street parking must conform to floor area used for offices. Section 203 of the Zoning Ordinance • One parking space for each 500 square feet of gross as amended. floor area for research and development or one space per employee on the highest working shift,whichever is greater. • One parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for commercial/retail. • One and one-half parking spaces per hotel room. • The width of parking lot drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet. BUILDING MATERIALS: • Recommend architectural materials are glass,gra nite, • Recommend architectural materials pre-cast concrete,and brick. are glass,granite,concrete, brick, • Bright overall colors shall not be permitted. and metal. • Bright overall colors shall not be permitted. However,bright colors are encouraged to enhance focal points and serve as accents. PARKING LOT SCREENING: • The developer of the individual sites shall provide a • Parking Lot landscaping must continuous evergreen and/or low berm screen along conform to the City of Virginia Beach any side of a parking lot that abuts a public street Landscape Guide as amended right-of-way. • Street trees shall be placed along all • The developer of any site that abuts a storm water roadways within the ROW.One tree retention lake or canal shall provide a landscape buffer shall be provided for every 35' of (minimum width 15 feet) between said lake and/or property line that adjoins or abuts canal and any proposed parking lot. This buffer shall the roadway. be planted with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen plant materials. 3 Prepared by: Office of the City Attorney CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia AND FROB, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, To (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT, made this 16th day of July, 2021, by and between CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and FROB, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (collectively referred to herein as "Applicants", and for indexing purposes, "GRANTORS"), and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, (referred to herein as "City", and for indexing purposes, the "GRANTEE"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Applicants own property located in the Beach District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 190.25 acres located in the Corporate Landing Business Park ("Corporate Landing"), as more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and hereinafter referred to as the "Property". Said Property being further identified and designated by the parcel identification numbers included on said Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Property is subject those certain restrictions and proffer agreement recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 2845, at Page 1773; Deed Book 2850, at Page 1127; Deed Book 3020, at Page 1451; Deed Book 3307, at Page 937; Deed Book 3340, at Page 824; Deed Book 3633, at Page 774; Instrument Number 2003052800082323, Instrument Number 2004092201518910; and Instrument Number 20190326000236820 (collectively, the "Existing Proffers"); and GPINs: 2415-12-2650, 2415-04-0770, 2415-14-6859, 2415-25-9170 & 2415-22-7788 1 WHEREAS, the Applicants, as owners of the Property, desire to modify and amend the Existing Proffers to i) consolidate multiple subsequent amendments, ii) align the covenants, restrictions and conditions with the current City of Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance, Landscape Guide, Public Works Stands and Specification and Building Code requirements, iii) to provide guidance on the land use, site design, building design, landscaping and signage throughout Corporate Landing; WHEREAS, the City's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Applicants' use of the Property is zoned; and WHEREAS, the Applicants do hereby voluntarily proffer, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the City, as part of the proposed Modification of Proffers, in addition to the regulations provided for by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, and use of the Property; NOW, THEREFORE, the Applicants, for themselves, their successors, representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the City or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Applicants, their successors and assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. The Property is hereby removed and released from the Existing Proffers and said Property will now be subject to the proffers contained herein. 2 2. Excluding the Property specifically described on Exhibit A, the remaining parcels of land located within Corporate Landing and not owned by the Applicants shall remain subject to the Existing Proffers, which remain in full force and affect. 3. Further conditions may be required by the City during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all City agencies and departments. 4. Except for permanent facility construction, exterior storage shall be prohibited. 5. Fencing on the Property, other than for screening purposes and where it is necessary for the security of certain facilities or necessary to funnel visitors to designated entry points, is prohibited. The VBDA shall approve all proposed fences for material, color, location, coupled plantings and overall impact. 6. Temporary facilities, other than construction related facilities, shall not be permitted within the front yards and when located in the rear yards, shall be removed immediately upon completion of the permanent facility. 7. All loading docks and dumpster areas that are visible from the lake area or street shall be screened with a wall a minimum of 8 ft. that matches the materials used on the building. Dumpsters shall also be gated. The screen wall shall be softened in its entirety with shrubs and trees. The extent of the screen wall and landscaping shall be subject to VBDA approval. 8. Those uses permitted in I-1 and B-2 zoning are permitted on the Property Those uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit from City Council shall continue to do so. 9. The following lists the minimum parking lot setback requirements: a) Adjacent to Dam Neck Road 50 ft. b) Adjacent to Residential Neighborhoods 50 ft. c) Adjacent to General Booth Blvd. 30 ft. d) Adjacent to Corporate Landing Parkway 25 ft. e) Other Public Streets 20 ft. f) Side & Rear Property Line 15 ft. g) Between Parking Lots and Buildings (excluding sidewalks) 10 ft. 3 10. The following are the parking requirements: a) Off-street parking must conform to Section 203 of the Zoning Ordinance as amended. b) The City's parking requirements shall not relieve the site owner or lessor of the responsibility of providing ample on-site parking for actual user demands. Parking on access roads and dedicated streets shall be prohibited. c) Parking lot landscape standards shall conform to the City of Virginia Beach Landscape Guide as amended. 11. The Corporate Landing Business Park Design Criteria, dated July 2021, is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference for additional specifications, conditions and requirements related to design requirements, land use, responsibilities of the VBDA, grading, drainage, utilities, plantings, lighting, building design and orientation, building materials and color and signage in Corporate Landing. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Applicants and allowed and accepted by the City as part of the Modification of Proffer, shall continue in full force and effect, 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 a subsequent written instrument amending the proffers is approved and executed by the record owner of the Property, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, provided that said instrument is consented to by the City in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the City, after a public hearing before the City which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2- 2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The Applicants covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied, and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (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; 4 (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Applicants shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES] 5 WITNESS the following signature and seal: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia By: (SEAL) Name: S�- Title: Chair/Vice-Chair Commonwealth of Virginia City of Vir ini a �to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this iG day of tee' d 20 2-I , by ti.A M .✓l'1 U Tl1 u , as Chair / Vice-Chair of City of Virgini-1 Beach Development Authority, on its behalf. ,t--6-1-t-\ ci"-61- �J NOTARY PUBLIC GLORIA A. DUFF My Commission Expires: 7/31) Z o Notary ZI Public My Registration Number: 22-- ;'. Commonwealth of Virginia • -d`� Registration No.21482 My Commission Expires Sepr.30. 1 Approved as to Content: Approved as to Le ciency: (5e0 afraChed Economic Development City Attorney 6 WITNESS the following signature and seal: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia By: l 5 GP- a-44a.G k ) (SEAL) Name: Title: Chair/Vice-Chair •mmonwealth of Virginia City • Virginia Beach, to-wit: The •regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 , by , as Chair / Vice-Chair of City of Virginia Beach Development Authon on its behalf. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: My Registration Number: Approv d s to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: (see_ ct+fached) Economic Development City Attorney 6 FROB, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company By: 44,A �C�:� (SEAL) Name: F« '7°e 4. Cz,-, 1(° Title: fl1(� Commonwealth of Virginia City of Virginia Beach, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I h day of 202\ , by c AC. 5 A A . COL t , as /keno` of FROB, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, on its behalf. v . K NOTARY PUBLIC ���Iglunlnllll� My Commission Expires: a/a� a •`` �. KE(, '%,,� My Registration Number: 770 a HS �.�`�C,�: oNwFq�F.' � o T�L' 'REG cr ISTRAT10N No T7pZ c RES: ��/i�TARY�$"\\ 0111111111111I° 7 EXHIBIT A (PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND GPIN LIST) GPIN: 2415-12-2650 ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, known, numbered and designated as "PARCEL 3-A-6B", as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION PLAT OF PARCEL 3-A-6A CORPORATE LANDING (PLAT INST. 20120418000423240)VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 01-28-2019", prepared by MidAtlantic Surveying and Land Design, which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 20190405000270640, reference to which is made for a more particular description. GPIN: 2415-14-6859 ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, known, numbered and designated as "RESIDUAL PARCEL 2A-2", as shown on that certain plat entitled "PARCEL MDO-11 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF RESIDUAL PARCEL 2A-1 CORPORATE LANDING AS SHOWN IN INSTRUMENT 200506010082268 FOR CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITUY VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated May 17, 2005, prepared by LandMark Design Group, which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 200506100087030, reference to which is made for a more particular description. GPIN: 2415-25-9170 ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, known, numbered and designated as "PARCEL 3B", as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 3 CORPORATE LANDING AS SHOWN IN (M.B. 216, P. 80 — 90) FOR CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH — VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", Scale: 1"=100', dated June 1, 1995, and revised through July 21, 1995, prepared by Langley and McDonald, P.C., which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office in Map Book 244, page 55, reference to which is made for a more particular description. GPIN: 2415-22-7788 ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, known, numbered and designated as "PARCEL C", as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 3-A-1-A-2 CORPORATE LANDING (IN. 20150604000514100) PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF VIRIGIA BECH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIRIGNIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated August 54, 2016, prepared by WPL, which plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 20161129001083010, reference to which is made for a more particular description. 8 GPIN: 2415-04-0770 ALL THAT certain lot, tract or parcel of land together with the improvement thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and designated and described as: "PARCEL MDO-1 AREA = 152,460 SQUARE FEE + OR 3.500 ACRES +" as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PLAT OF PARCEL MDO-1 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 CORPORATE LANDING AS SHOWN IN MAP BOOK 216 AT PAGE 80 — 90 FOR CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH — VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated September 15, 1995, Revised October 10, 1995, Scale: 1"=50', made by Langley and McDonald, P.C., which plat is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 247, at pages 65 & 66, to which reference is made for a more particular description. 9 EXHIBIT B (CORPORATE LANDING BUSINESS PARK DESIGN CRITERIA - JULY 2021) 10 Item # 8 Virginia Beach Development Authority [Applicant] Virginia Beach Development Authority & FROB, LLC [Property Owners] Modification of Proffers Portion of Corporate Landing Business Park August 11, 2021 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL - CONSENT Mr. Wall: Okay, thank you Mr. Horsley. The next item on the consent agenda is agenda Item #8, Virginia Beach Development Authority, and Virginia Beach Development Authority, and FROB, LLC Modification of Proffers. Address is portion of the Corporate Landing Business Park. Is there a representative for this item? Mr. Royal: For the record, Randy Royal, Kimley-Horn and Associates. I'm kind of tagging that John Richardson was formerly representing it, but I was representing Economic Development. On this, I guess I can stand in if need be. Mr. Wall: Are the proffers acceptable? Mr. Royal: Yes sir. Mr. Wall: All right. Mr. Royal: Thank you. Mr. Wall: Is there any opposition for this item being placed on the consent agenda? Mr. Weiner: We are going to go ahead and read it. Mr. Redmond is going ahead and read this into the record, if that's okay. Ms. Smith: Excuse me, if we can make a clarification -- Mr. Royal. Mr. Weiner: We understand that the Development Authority is the actual applicant. Ms. Archer: I'm on the Economic Development department staff that helped, write that, and I'm standing by. Mr. Wall: Thank you. So I guess the proffers are acceptable in that case? So again, is there any opposition for this item being placed on the consent agenda? Hearing none, here we have asked Mr. Redmond to read this into the record. 1 Mr. Redmond: Thank you, Mr. Wall. This is an application by the Virginia Beach Development Authority, owners of the property of Virginia Beach Development Authority and FROB, LLC, which is an adjacent property owner. And this is a Modification of Proffers. Specifically,the application is seeking a Modification of Proffers to update the design criteria for a portion of Corporate Landing Business Park. Park property was rezoned in 1988, and the design criteria was adopted in 1990, with an amendment added in 1998. The new design criteria seek to ensure the Corporate Landing Business Park remains relevant for current and future market opportunities, reduce redundancy and to better align the document with current codes and requirements. To consolidate multiple subsequent amendments into one user friendly and attractive document, permit more flexibility with new and innovative materials and construction methods and provide more guidance on light industrial and advanced manufacturing building types. In short, the purpose of this amendment is to modernize the design criteria --the 31-year old design criteria for Corporate Landing Business Park, which very recently has enjoyed a burst of interest and activity of which we all should be quite happy and proud. If you think about it, the car you drove 31 years today is quite a bit different than the one you might have today. And design criteria for a project the size of Corporate Landing, very probably ought to be modernized just as your transportation means would be as well. There is beginning on page three of the staff report on this particular item, a table which lists the changes from the current design criteria to the updated design criteria. I will not recite them all here. If anybody has any questions about how specifically the criteria are changing, I would urge you to consult the staff report on this. In short, it is a modernization of how Corporate Landing Business Park is to be designed. The city and adjacent property owners are the applicants. There is no opposition to the request. Planning Commission therefore places it on consent, Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall: Okay, thank you, Mr. Coston. That was the last item on the regular consent agenda. The Planning Commission also places the following applications for Conditional Use Permit for Short-Term Rental on the consent agenda as they meet the applicable requirements for Section 241.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff and the Planning Commission support the applications and there are no speakers signed up in opposition. These are agenda items number 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Mr. Chair that was the last item on the consent agenda. I move for approval of agenda items number 1, 8, 9, 10, 11 and Short-Term Rental items# 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Mr. Weiner: We have a motion for approval for the second. We have a motion Mr. Wall as second by Ms. Oliver and we have any one abstaining? Mr. Graham: I have a letter pursuant to the state and local government Conflict of Interest Act. I have a letter on file making the following declaration. The agenda item #1 is financed by Towne Bank and I hereby make this disclosure that I serve on an 2 advisory board at Towne Bank, which makes no loan decisions. And I believe that I can participate in this vote. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Inman. Mr. Inman: Likewise, I would like to make the following declaration. Agenda item #1, being financed by Towne Bank. I serve on the Advisory Board of Towne Bank, and make no decision on loans and feel like I can participate fairly in this vote. Mr. Weiner Mr. Redmond, short term rentals. Mr. Redmond:Yeah, I am happy to do it now, we are not there yet, but...oh, we are there. Okay, I have a letter on file with the City Attorney's Office and have for some months. I have a client who is in the travel industry and has some business that is involved with short-term rentals, therefore, I do not vote on any Short-Term Rental applications or any of the ordinances with regard to Short-Term Rentals and I repeat that that letter,which I renew monthly is on file with the City Attorney.Thank you. Mr. Weiner: Madam Clerk, that's everything. Madam Clerk: Okay, vote is open. By recorded vote of 9 in favor and 0 against agenda items 1, 8, 9, 10 and 11 have been recommended for approval. By recorded vote of 8 in favor, 0 against with one abstention. Agenda items 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 have been recommended for approval. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz AYE Coston AYE Graham AYE Horsley AYE Inman AYE Klein ABSENT Oliver AYE Redmond AYE Wall AYE Weiner AYE PROFFERS The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the 3 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: The Property is hereby removed and released from the Existing Proffers and said Property will now be subject to the proffers contained herein. Proffer 2: Excluding the Property specifically described on Exhibit A, the remaining parcels of land located within Corporate Landing and not owned by the Applicants shall remain subject to the Existing Proffers, which remain in full force and affect. Proffer 3: Further conditions may be required by the City during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all City agencies and departments. Proffer 4: Except for permanent facility construction, exterior storage shall be prohibited. Proffer 5: Fencing on the Property, other than for screening purposes and where it is necessary for the security of certain facilities or necessary to funnel visitors to designated entry points, is prohibited. The VBDA shall approve all proposed fences for material, color, location, coupled plantings and overall impact. Proffer 6: Temporary facilities, other than construction related facilities, shall not be permitted within the front yards and when located in the rear yards, shall be removed immediately upon completion of the permanent facility. Proffer 7: All loading docks and dumpster areas that are visible from the lake area or street shall be screened with a wall a minimum of 8 ft. that matches the materials used on the building. Dumpsters shall also be gated. The screen wall shall be softened in its entirety with shrubs and trees. The extent of the screen wall and landscaping shall be subject to VBDA approval. Proffer 8: Those uses permitted in I-1 and B-2 zoning are permitted on the Property. Those uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit from City Council shall continue to do so. Proffer 9: 4 The following lists the minimum parking lot setback requirements: a) Adjacent to Dam Neck Road 50 ft. b) Adjacent to Residential Neighborhoods 50 ft. c) Adjacent to General Booth Blvd. 30 ft. d) Adjacent to Corporate Landing Parkway 25 ft. e) Other Public Streets 20 ft. f) Side & Rear Property Line 15 ft. g) Between Parking Lots and Buildings 10 ft. (excluding sidewalks) Proffer 10: The following are the parking requirements: a) Off-street parking must conform to Section 203 of the Zoning Ordinance as amended. b) The City's parking requirements shall not relieve the site owner or lessor of the responsibility of providing ample on-site parking for actual user demands. Parking on access roads and dedicated streets shall be prohibited. c) Parking lot landscape standards shall conform to the City of Virginia Beach Landscape Guide as amended. Proffer 11: The Corporate Landing Business Park Design Criteria, dated July 2021, is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference for additional specifications, conditions and requirements related to design requirements, land use, responsibilities of the VBDA, grading, drainage, utilities, plantings, lighting, building design and orientation, building materials and color and signage in Corporate Landing. Staff Comments: The Proffers provide more flexibility for developments within the Park to create a more marketable and comparative business park in the region. Staff has reviewed the Proffers listed above and finds them acceptable. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the agreement and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. 5 1996 Proffers That Remain in Effect for The Remainder of The Park 1. All uses permitted in the R & D Research and Development Office Warehouse District (R & D) shall be permitted within the MDO Medium Density Office Use District (MDO). Likewise, all uses permitted within the MDO district shall be permitted within the R & D district. 2. In addition to the uses identified in the prior proffers, within the R & D and MDO districts the following uses are permitted: Manufacturing Public buildings and grounds Heliports. Provided however, that no portion of a heliport may be located within 500 feet of residentially zoned property. 3. Except as modified herein, the prior Proffers shall remain in full force and effect. 1989 Proffers That Remain in Effect for The Remainder of The Park 1. The following uses shall be the only uses permitted within each district. Those uses requiring a conditional use permit from City Council shall continue to be required to obtain said conditional use permit, and City Council by accepting this proffer, does not grant the right to place any conditional uses within the property. R&D: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT This classification refers to the development of on and two story office/warehouse buildings. USE 1. Business, medical, financial, nonprofit, professional and similar office buildings in conjunction with an office/warehouse environment. 2. Establishments such as linen suppliers, freight movers, communication services and canteen services. 3. Establishments which deliver merchandise in bulk by truck or van. 4. Light assembly, processing, extracting, packaging or fabricating establishments. 5. Motion picture studios. 6. Printing lithographic or publishing establishments. 7. Public utilities installations and substations including offices. 8. Radio or television transmission and relay stations. 9. Wholesaling, warehousing, storage or distribution establishments. 6 10. Eating and drinking establishments in connection with other permitted uses (no free- standing restaurant sites). 11. Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. MDO DISTRICT: MEDIUM DENSITY OFFICE USE This classification refers to the development of mid-rise office buildings. USE 1. Business, medical, financial, nonprofit, professional, and similar office buildings. 2. Eating and drinking establishments in connection with other permitted uses (no free- standing restaurant sites). 3. Motion picture studios. 4. Printing, lithographic or publishing establishments. 5. Recreational facilities of an outdoor nature in accordance with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 6. Vocational, industrial and trade schools. 7. Recreational facilities other than those of an outdoor nature. 8. Public and private schools, colleges and universities. 9. Public utility facilities. 10.Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. MXD2 DISTRICT: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT This classification refers to the development of a mixed use complex that would provide retail shops, restaurants, office space, and similar uses. USE 1. Automobile service stations or repair facilities that perform the same functions as cited in Section 111 of the Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance. 2. Bakeries, confectioneries and delicatessens, provided that products prepared or process on the premises shall be sold at retail and only on the premises. 3. Business studios, offices, and clinics. 4. Car wash facilities, provided that: (i) no water produced by activities on the zoning lot shall be permitted to fall upon or drain across public streets or sidewalks or adjacent 7 properties; (ii) a minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces for automobiles shall be provided for each car wash space within the facility. 5. Child care and child care education centers. 6. Drugstores, beauty shops and barbershops. 7. Eating and drinking establishments without drive-through windows. 8. Financial institutions. 9. Florists, gift shops and stationery stores. 10. Service and repair services for business machines, sign shops and other small service businesses. 11. Grocery stores, carry-out food stores and convenience stores any of which are not freestanding but are in a structure with a gross floor area of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. 12. Laboratories and establishments for the production and repair of eye glasses, hearing aids and prosthetic devices. 13. Laundry and dry cleaning agencies. 14. Medical and dental offices. 15. Museums and art galleries. 16. Job and commercial printing. 17. Personal service establishments, other than those listed separately. 18. Athletic clubs. 19. Public utilities installations and substations, including offices. 20. Repair and sales for radio and television and other household appliances, except where such establishments exceed two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of floor area. 21. Retail establishments, other than those listed separately, including the incidental manufacturing of goods for sale only at retail on the premises; retail sales and display rooms. 22. Veterinary establishments and commercial kennels, provided that all animals shall be kept in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings. 23.Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 2. The following chart lists the building requirements within the various classifications for minimum lot area, width, yard spacing, floor area ration, and coverage: 8 R & D MDO MXD2 Minimum Lot Area 3.5 Ac 3.5 Ac 1.0 Ac Minimum Lot Width 100' 100' 100' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to General Booth Boulevard 75' -- 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Corporate Landing Drive 75' 75' 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Other Public/Private Streets 50' 50' 50' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Residential Neighborhoods 75' 75' 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Side Property Lines 30' 30' 30' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Rear Property Lines 30' 30' 30' Maximum Floor Area Ratio .50 .90 .90 Maximum Building and Paved Area Coverage (excluding outside plaza and 75% 60% 75% gathering areas) 3. The following chart lists the parking lot setback requirements within the various classifications of the property. R&D MDO MXD2 Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to General Booth Boulevard 75' -- 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Corporate Landing Drive 50' 50' 50' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Other Public Streets 50' 50' 50' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Private Streets (excluding access drives & 25' 25' 25' parking lot drive aisles) Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Residential Neighborhoods 75' 75' 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Side Property Lines (excluding common 15' 15' 15' drive aisles between parcels) Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Rear Property Lines 15' 15' 15' Minimum Yard Setback Between Parking Lots & Buildings (excluding 20' 20' 0' sidewalks) 9 4. The maximum building height for the various use classifications located within the property are as follows. A. R&D: 35 Feet B. MDO: Not to exceed a height equal to twice the distance from the building to the vertical projection of the center line of the nearest public street; however, no building shall exceed 100' in height, and no building within 300' of the right-of-way of General Booth Boulevard shall exceed 40' in height. C. MXD2: 35 Feet D. Notwithstanding the above, no building or other structure shall exceed the height limit established by the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding air navigation. 5. General Requirements Applicable to all use classifications located within the property. A. Parking Requirements: The minimum number of parking spaces and dimensional requirements on any site shall be as follows: 1. One parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area used for offices. 2. One parking space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area for research and development or one space per employee on the highest working shift, whichever is greater. 3. One parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for commercial/retail. 4. One and one-half parking spaces per hotel room. 5. As required by the City of Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for other uses permitted within the property. 6. The size of parking stalls and handicapped allowances shall be as required by the City of Virginia Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 7. The width of parking lot drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet. 8. The color of parking lot stripping shall be white. Special stripping shall be as required by the City of Virginia Beach. 9. These requirements shall be accepted as minimum standards, however, such requirements shall not relieve the site owner or lessor of the responsibility of providing ample on-site parking for actual user demands. Parking on access roads and dedicated streets shall be prohibited. B. Loading Areas 1. Loading docks shall be designed and located so that they are not visible from public roadway view, adjacent residential neighborhood view, and view within the park. The uses of berming and landscape screening shall be employed to screen loading areas. 2. The location of any loading dock areas shall be subject to approval by the Virginia Beach Development Authority. 10 C. Landscape Requirements (Minimum) 1. The Development Authority will provide in the 75 foot setbacks adjacent to the existing residential neighborhoods of Strawbridge and Princess Anne Hunt Club subdivision a rolling earthen berm (minimum height four(4)feet up to approximately ten (10)feet with appropriate evergreen plantings to provide a buffer between the park and these residential neighborhoods. Where the parking abuts property not currently developed for residential use the Authority will reserve a 75 foot strip of land for the future placement of a berm and evergreen plantings should said adjacent property be developed into residential neighborhoods. 2. The developer of the individual sites shall provide a continuous evergreen and/or low berm screen along any side of a parking lot that abuts a public street right-of-way. Such buffer shall be located within the parking lot setbacks established by Section 3. 3. The developer of any site that abuts a storm water retention lake or canal shall provide a landscape buffer(minimum width 15 feet) between said lake and/or canal and any proposed parking lot. This buffer shall be planted with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen plant materials. 6. The Development Authority shall not extend the existing residential street known as Wandsworth Drive into the property. The Development Authority shall not grant right-of-way over the property for connections into residential neighborhoods not yet developed except those streets so designated on the City of Virginia Beach Master Street and Highway Plan. Roads shall not be extended into Princess Anne Hunt Club subdivision and/or Strawbridge from the property. 11 DESIGN CRITERIA ArNF CORPORAIE NINI1/ LANDING A DEVELOPMENT BY THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CORPORATE LANDING VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA DESIGN CRITERIA September 26, 1990 INCLUDING DESIGN CRITERIA ADDENDUM #2 AUGUST 18, 1998 INTRODUCTION ARTICLE 1: THE PARK 1. 01 MASTER PLAN 1.02 LAND USES 1.03 IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDED BY DEVELOPER EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT B MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN LAND USE ARTICLE II: THE SITE PLAN 2.01 APPLICABLE CODES 2.02 SITE COVERAGE RATIO AND BUILDING SETBACKS 2.03 BUILDING ORIENTATION 2.04 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE 2.05 CURB CUTS AND INTERNAL DRIVES 2.06 PARKING LOT SETBACKS 2.07 PARKING LOT SCREENING 2.08 PARKING REQUIREMENTS 2.09 LOADING AREAS 2 . 10 EXTERIOR STORAGE 2. 11 FENCING 2. 12 REFUSE FACILITIES 2. 13 UTILITIES 2. 14 TEMPORARY FACILITIES 2. 15 JOGGING TRAILS ARTICLE III: THE LANDSCAPE 3. 01 LANDSCAPING 3.02 IRRIGATION 3. 03 SITE LIGHTING 3.04 SITE FURNITURE EXHIBIT D LANDSCAPE PLANTING LIST EXHIBIT E TYPICAL LAKE EDGE EXHIBIT F TYPICAL JOGGING TRAIL EXHIBIT G TYPICAL SCREENING AT PARKING LOTS EXHIBIT H SITE FURNISHINGS EXHIBIT I VARIOUS SCREENING REQUIREMENTS SITE UTILITIES AND LOADING DOCKS EXHIBIT J DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE EXHIBIT K SCREENING ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES EXHIBIT L TYPICAL BUILDING ENTRY DRIVES EXHIBIT M LIGHTING FIXTURE STANDARDS ARTICLE IV: SIGNAGE 4. 01 BUILDING SIGNAGE DESIGN CRITERIA EXHIBIT N PARK ENTRY SIGN EXHIBIT 0 INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SIGN (MDO AREA) EXHIBIT P BUILDING CLUSTER SIGN (LDO AND R&D AREA) EXHIBIT Q TENANT SIGNS ON BUILDINGS EXHIBIT R MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT SIGN EXHIBIT S REGULATORY SIGNAGE EXHIBIT T TEMPORARY AND REALTOR SIGNS ARTICLE V: THE BUILDING 5. 01 APPLICABLE CODES 5. 02 BUILDING DESIGN CONCEPT 5.03 EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND TREATMENTS 5. 04 COLOR OF MATERIALS 5. 05 BUILDING HEIGHTS 5. 06 SCREENING AND LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT ARTICLE VI: REVIEW OF PLANS BY VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 6. 01 INTRODUCTION 6.02 PROCEDURES 6. 03 REVIEW OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 6. 04 BASIS OF APPROVAL 6.05 REVIEW COMMITTEE 6.06 REVIEW TIME 6.07 PUBLIC APPROVALS INTRODUCTION Corporate Landing (the Park) is a planned multi-facted business park encompassing approximately 372 acres of land. The park is strategically located between the proposed alignment of the Southeastern Expressway and General Booth Boulevard. This planned environment offers properties for the development of Corporate Headquarters, Professional Services, Research and Development, High-Tech Facilities, Office Distribution Buildings, Retail, as well as 2 Hotel sites. The office park contains approximately 38 acres of lakes and when completed will include jogging trails, plazas and a variety of outdoor green spaces. Corporate Landing will be developed and maintained with an attractive "park-like" setting with high quality buildings integrated into a natural landscaped environment. It is the intent of the Virginia Beach Development Authority (VBDA) to encourage the construction of attractive quality environs throughout the park. It is for this reason that the Design Criteria herein are established to complement the various other covenants which the VBDA presently has in place. 1 ARTICLE 1: THE PARK 1.01 MASTER PLAN A. Plan Concept: Corporate Landing, shown on (Exhibits A, B and C) , has been developed to illustrate the intent to develop a unified concept without imposing undue restrictions upon the development of individual sites within the park. This Master Plan, in addition to the layout of the sites, shall incorporate exterior lighting, signage, and landscaping criteria for each of the individual sites. B. It is for this reason that the design criteria herein are established for site density, building materials, landscaping, signage, site furniture and site lighting to insure the fruition of a unified, qualitative park environment. The design criteria and master plan have been created by and are subject to modification and revision by the Virginia Beach Development Authority. 1.02 LAND USES A. Land uses within the park have been established for the various building types which will be housed in the park, see (Exhibit C) . The following is a description of these districts. Each site developer shall be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the approved rezoning application. 1. LDO DISTRICT (LOW DENSITY OFFICE USE) : This classification refers to the development of one and two story office buildings with a maximum building height of 35 feet. USE a. Business, medical, financial, nonprofit, professional and similar office buildings. b. Lithographic and publishing establishments. c. Public buildings and grounds. d. Vocational, technical, industrial, and trade schools. e. Motion picture studios. f. Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance. 2. MDO DISTRICT (MEDIUM DENSITY OFFICE USE) : This classification refers to the development of mid-rise office buildings with a maximum building height not to exceed a height equal to twice the distance from the building to the vertical projection of the center line of the nearest public street; however, no building shall exceed 100' in height, and no building within 300' of the right-of-way of General Booth Boulevard shall exceed 40' in height. USE a. Business, medical, financial, nonprofit, professional, and similar office buildings. b. Eating and drinking establishments in connection with other permitted uses (no free-standing restaurant sites. c. Motion picture studios. d. Printing, lithographic or publishing establishments. e. Recreational facilities of an outdoor nature in accordance with the Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance. f. Vocational, industrial and trade schools. g. Recreational facilities other than those of an outdoor nature. h. Public and private schools, colleges and universities. i. Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and - subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance. 4 3. R&D (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT/OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT) : This classification refers to the development of one and two story office/warehouse buildings with a maximum building height of 35 feet. USE a. Business, medical, financial, nonprofit, professional and similar office buildings in conjunction with an office/warehouse environment. b. Establishments such as linen suppliers, communication services and canteen services. c. Light assembly, processing, extracting, packaging or fabricating establishments. d. Motion picture studios. e. Printing lithographic or publishing establishments. f. Public utilities installations and substations including offices. g. Radio or television transmission and relay stations. h. Wholesaling, warehousing, storage or distribution establishments. i. Eating and drinking establishments in connection with other permitted uses (no free-standing restaurant sites) . j . Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance. 4. MXD DISTRICT (MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT) : This classification refers to the development of a mixed use complex that would provide retail shops, a hotel, restaurants, office space, sports and recreation centers with a maximum building height not to exceed a height equal to twice the distance from the building to the vertical projection of the center line of the nearest public street. USE a. Automotive rental, parts and supply stores in connection with other permitted uses. b. Business, medical, financial, nonprofit, professional and similar office buildings. c. Eating and drinking establishments. d. Establishments such as linen suppliers, communication services, and canteen services. e. Hotels. f. Printing, lithographic or publishing establishments. g. Recreational facilities of an outdoor nature. h. Recreational facilities other than those of an outdoor nature. i. Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance. 6 5. MXD2 DISTRICT (MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT) : This classification refers to the development of a mixed use complex that would provide retail shops, restaurants, office space and similar uses with a maximum building height of 35 feet. a. Automobile service stations or repair facilities that perform the same - functions as cited in Sub-Section 111 of the Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance. b. Bakeries, confectioneries and delicatessens, provided that products prepared or processed on the premises shall be sold at retail and only on the premises. c. Business studios, offices and clinics. d. Car wash facilities, provided that: (i) no water produced by activities on the zoning lot shall be permitted to fall upon or drain across public streets or sidewalks or adjacent properties; (ii) a minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces for automobiles shall be provided for each car wash space within the facility. e. Child care and child education centers. f. Drugstores, beauty shops and barbershops. g. Eating and drinking establishments without drive-through windows. h. Financial institutions. i. Florists, gift shops and stationery stores. j . Service and repair services for business machines, sign shops and other small service businesses. k. Grocery stores, carry-out food stores and convenience stores any of which are not freestanding but are in a structure with a gross floor area of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. 7 1. Laboratories and establishments for the production and repair of eye glasses, hearing aids and prosthetic devices. m. Laundry and dry cleaning agencies. n. Medical and dental offices. o. Museums and art galleries. p. Job and commercial printing. q. Personal service establishments, other than those listed separately. r. Athletic clubs. s. Public utilities installations and substations, including offices. t. Repair and sales for radio and television and other household appliances, except where such establishments exceed two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of floor area. u. Retail establishments, other than those listed separately, including the incidental manufacturing of goods for sale only at retail on premises; retail sales and display rooms. v. Veterinary establishments and commercial kennels, provided that all animals shall be kept in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings. w. Accessory uses and structures which may be reviewed and approved by City of Virginia Beach Zoning Administrator which are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses in accordance with the Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance. A. Notwithstanding the above, no building or other structure shall exceed the height limits established by the Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance regarding air navigation. 8 B. The Virginia Beach Development Authority (VBDA) , maintains the right of approval of the property's use. The VBDA with the concurrence of the Virginia Beach City Council maintains the right to alter or adjust the boundaries of the land use districts. 1. 03 IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDED BY DEVELOPER The following site improvements will be provided as shown on drawings available from Virginia Beach Development Authority: A. Roadways: Estates Drive, Culver Lane and Corporate Landing Drive. B. Utilities: Water, electricity, sanitary sewer and telephone shall be provided to within the right of way of the three roads listed in A above or within an easement adjacent to the right of way. Connections to these major lines will be the responsibility of the site purchaser. C. Signs: Park entrance signs shall be freestanding and will be located at the intersections of the main entrances into the park. Directional and traffic signs will be provided as required. See Sign Exhibits for example of park signs. D. Landscaping: Landscaping of the common areas at the park's entrances with irrigation will be provided. E. The Development Authority will provide in the 75 foot setbacks adjacent to the existing residential neighborhoods of Red Wing, Dam Neck Estates, and Strawbridge, a rolling earthen berm (minimum height four (4) feet up to approximately ten (10) feet) with appropriate evergreen plantings to provide a buffer between the park and adjacent residential neighborhoods. Where the park abutts property not currently developed for residential use, the Development Authority will reserve a 75 foot strip of land for the future placement of a berm with evergreen plantings, should said adjacent property be developed into residential neighborhoods, see (Exhibit K) . Property owners within the park q shall be responsible for maintaining the berm along their entire length of property. Maintenance shall consist of weeding, fertilizing and watering of all trees, shrubs and lawn area to maintain healthy plant life. In addition all lawn areas shall be maintained at 2 1/2" in height and cut when lawn areas reach 4" in height. 10 -----------; VI Qp.`01 EmwtU O .r••••••r•••...••r••.•i i iri.i i• 41 _ _ ..„-- (...,. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••i•••••: • \ •�•••.•�• ♦r❖♦•.rr•••r•r•.•••r r r�•r•r•r•r•••••r•r•••r� r�••.•:.•.❖.•••••"••••••••"•••••.•N••�•�••••••1..••.•.•...•.•....., � DM PECK ESTATES h 44 •❖•.••❖••�••�.•�♦•+❖r•r•.••••❖.�...... h ••i•••••❖i••�••••�•�...•.•.❖fir••.•••.`` .••••••�••••�•�•�•••••.•.••r•••.• ••••••••••••••••r•�•••••�•••••••.. .••rrr••rr•rrr•r•• •.••••••••••❖•••••r•••r••••••••••••.r•..••••,� • `%ii•iii•i•iii •• ER 111E :.; ., `• •iri •• ♦. `•••••••••••••••O•�• • .•❖••r❖.• i •••..• •.STRAAAMGE \''N'N",,,,... A LOCATION MAP •' a loon' Soo' 0 7odo' 11 ... 0 0 N , .,. .._ .. . sti in i - 1T-b. ,„N ,„...„..,..t _ .__. eo • i I- \ .,-... _ 11111116%•;'",--. ....17,A Ale'il .\ :,,/ . , _.. \ 1 Ore ,, r- WO i (7 W e, . .0.43", 10..-A----,--.7.6i*i gini o ■ 4 . % '' ,.0•+,c,.fr-A' ., , . fr3. ,1 r_t ,5 8 -z. iv, i g , ,,,• .4%,-- .„.... ._.,I... ; . I v, /- . i t W �. P� X � l '''. .-x. ./ • A74..- 27.';1>‘'1 TA . 2 A er .� '. '_i.).."-rI (i,.,,,.\`a%\,.,,.,\\%,.z,_ ..4_?,1:37..-;-\--:cy . _ / G z • - ._\ i,(.i1,...1 i.,i,-.4.—m,.4.—,,._i..,__,- o ,--I t.,-) i� 0. r 1 0. t '1:` �.•f,. 1— 5-i1t .:«t?lkt o Fi :,._:;;/ / z 0 ''.- �!. \ , r�1 1 • < IAtisc,,,, 0 . a. „..tifr...., ii ,li �� I+1 o QJ Z il 11--:1::1iep„-„,,,, - ,---., , I L, I . .......,,,,, ( _____. ., .,..____. ,1 Z p I W 7 1,1 ; ; o Ce W W = i— I- N 0 Q 1- 2 zz m I 1 I I i r 0 M 0 e N b 0 otno va \ •1°40 ' , Ii1 0 it l./• 0 t t 1`J\• t b.. J, W war �\ /. 11 l O p. Ar I• �\\..1^pia s/ a ��♦.iirr =;_`..Ali: * ar �s \ ,\,i t\� O • asii..rNil ` =�:::�'^ 4 aioaaoaoiii�ai .\��1�tt 1,♦ d aarNaoaaN 0000000000000_ t ..) •,i.,; 3 aarrraaaaaaaN ,.♦.t.,:l.,- yl :R..RRN r aaN.. ��♦i..'t oo y • • taaaaaRaaaa faraaRa `I,�,,1„tom. 6QC •af■fa■■0000• iraRNaa/ L♦1_`i,:,\t k a.afaaRaaaRa.• ai.r.a.R.R. i�,.tli,,. frf■/arr/arar a.afaaraa/r■ , . 8_s w .' oaopo■- aafoo■oo. i N.l„� .R.r.RwaaraaR ,I.aa.aa/ra.a.r aiaaNf.rra� assaaaaoo� t 1,it 1%t Wit_ a■frarooa� arrro/ wraoaa .t,;+ ,t t aaawaaNaaaaaaaar.. Aaa■opfwsaa fa raRrrarl•^��``tN Iraaa/.aaaaaa► .■/..afr.aaar wa.awa.a.a.aas...a.► 1aa■aafror aasaraaaaarasa Ir.a■■aaaaa fawra/r:aN/NaiNNr•NR./ It 1. • .rao.ar ':1_ loasaara /Rrrar■rr 2 :N�a /aaa.aN a.Rrr a.r.aa.aa.aiiii. .wa..araarrar.aaaraaararaaa fY I.aaaaa► aaN ii+iiii+sisfarR/a. .�aaaa.asafRarar w ....... .aarr.rrrrrr+ .araRawar/ra........_ aaaraar.aaa }. I.aN� R.�iiiiiriw. �s.aaaaaaaaaa H INa! n a.aaaaara iiiiiiiii�aarararras_ �. arar.raaara _�N• ,v.R.roaasooaoo .Ilaraa.a .■ra.rrwaaasaRaaa.aa..r._ rrarrara w air .w.ra..rarraa� auaraaaaraaaaiiiiiiiiaiiia_ �aaaaarrraasaaasaai�wiiii�i/ir #rru...It"■ .....:..iiN.asarrRaro..ty4�........ora T � .11V .�rw/r......Mansiia.a,. saarrraarrRNaa/rarrwaraa, `' wo.. Noasaa�Naallaaa�'i�• raaa.sN Naa � �t, o�aN ,r aalloaNawasaNasa Q '. °fix` ,ta.aaN aNa./ %rt� aaNafaaaaaaaa:^ £f� NraaaNM. 1NrN H f far.- .............. Naaaaaaaaaa• ar.rar� aaa�f. aNa.a..a.Raa.aala aaRarar.a ara/aaa maw. ' �.•i ,. wi....."bi aaihnrNoii ......r. ■rNrorNN• :-_' r k NaaoraraaraarrrNNo aoNo.00- @ ,� �aaNNNaa r.raaarir.raraRaaiiii�sa. arN a.rarr aaaaaa... .araa.. �aa...... J ..........................................■ ....... �aar.a.N �::_C[:c__;, � t. aalloNrraaroararNNa pNON� . 1 , r. ... RONNrN.oam„w.....osN..o N. orN •:: C•s x ;,•" 4 i � Ji; ',sM.is iNo...raa -asKhrNa faNMwj . �j;iat7.3 E1'7 !.iiii..iii.. oowar.:::: araa..a.Ra. r.r.wii : :1:::i:eis:,,,„ �a.Niiir•.aa...w....................................... 7 Ai VI W tY W W Z tali O . O. O .. y. W J ,J .. Z p w c as a ›. O Fr- W N N W N 0 _ .� '� wl et 0 0 0 O W X X VIcm Z ..1 O O � CI xw 1 of W moo Isar :' J Iasi . 1 ARTICLE II: THE SITE PLAN 2. 01 APPLICABLE CODES A. Development of all property within Corporate Landing is governed by the requirements and restrictions of the recorded Zoning Proffers of the VBDA as well as the various ordinances and laws of the agencies of the City of Virginia Beach and the State of Virginia. It is the responsibility of the individual site developer to verify and conform with all requirements of governing agencies and obtain and maintain all necessary permits during the development of the property. 2. 02 SITE COVERAGE RATIO AND BUILDING SETBACKS A. The following chart lists the building requirements within the various classifications for minimum lot area, width, yard spacing, floor area ratio, and coverage: R&D LDO MDO MXD MXD2 Minimum Lot Area 3.5 Ac 2 .0 Ac 3.5 Ac 3 .5 Ac 1.0 Ac Minimum Lot Width 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' Minimum Yard Setback Dam Neck Road 100' 100' 100' ---- ---- Minimum Yard Setback General Booth Boulevard ---- ---- 75' ---- 75' 14 R&D LDO MDO MXD MXD2 Minimum Yard Setback Corporate Landing Parkway 75' 75' 75 ---- 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Other Public/Private Streets 50' 50' 50' 50' 50' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Residential Neighborhoods 75' 75' 75' 75' 75' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Side Property Property Lines 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Rear Property Lines 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' Maximum Floor Area Ratios .50 .50 .90 .90 .90 Maximum Building and Paved Area Coverage 75% 60% 60% 65% 75% 1. Floor Area Ratio: The ratio of floor area to land area expressed as a percent or decimal which shall be determined by dividing the total floor area on a zoning lot by the lot area of that zoning lot. 15 2 .03 BUILDING ORIENTATION A. Buildings to be constructed at Corporate Landing shall be sited in general accordance with the master plan and as approved by the VBDA. Primary building axis shall be as directed by the VBDA. 2.04 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE A. The site grading of each individual building site in Corporate Landing shall be done in a manner complimentary and compatible with the adjacent sites and with the overall land plan. All site grading shall be approved by the VBDA. All site grading shall have a minimum 1% positive drainage. B. No slopes in the Park shall exceed 3 to 1 unless approved by VBDA. C. All paved areas shall have a minimum 1% slope (1: 100) . D. All grading plans shall indicate locations of any large existing trees (6" caliper and larger) and tree masses. E. The utilization of best land management practices and the stormwater management ordinance shall be incorporated into the master drainage plan for Corporate Landing and each individual site drainage plans. F. Drainage easements shall be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach as required by the Corporate Landing master drainage plan and individual site development. G. Erosion and Sediment control for all site development shall be in accordance with the specifications outlined in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. 1A 2.05 CURB CUTS AND INTERNAL DRIVES A. Curb Cuts: 1. Curb cuts shall be as shown on (Exhibit B) . Any variations shall be as approved by the VBDA. 2. Curb Cuts for 2-way drives may not exceed 36 feet in width. 3. Curb cuts for one way drives with an island in the center shall be as follows: a. The drive exiting shall not exceed a total of 24 feet in width for both the left and right turn lanes. b. The drive entering shall not exceed 15 feet in width. — c. The island in the center shall be 15 feet wide. 2.06 PARKING LOT SETBACKS A. The following chart lists the minimum parking lot setback requirements within the various classifications of the property. R&D LDO MDO MXD MXD2 Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Dam Neck Road 75' 75' 75' ---- ---- Minimum Yard Setback General Booth Boulevard ---- ---- 75' ---- 75' Minimum Yard Setback Corporate Landing Parkway 40i1 50' 50' ---- 50' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Other Public Streets 40' & 50'1 50' 50' 50' 50' 17 • R&D LDO MDO MXD MXD2 Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Private Streets (excluding access drives and Parking Lot Drive Aisles 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Minimum Yard Setback Adjacent to Residential Neighborhoods 75' 75' 75' 75' 75' _ Minimum Yard Setback Side Property Line 15'2 15'2 15'2 15'2 15'2 Minimum Yard Setback Rear Property Line 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' Minimum Yard Setback Between Parking Lots and Buildings (excluding Sidewalks) 20' 20' 20' 20' 0' 1. 40' North of Dam Neck Road 2. Excluding Common Drive Aisles Between Parcels. 18 2 . 07 PARKING LOT SCREENING A. The developer of the individual sites shall provide a continuous evergreen and/or low berm screen along any side of a parking lot that abutts a public street right-of-way. Such buffering shall be located with the parking lot setbacks established by Item 2.06, see (Exhibit G) . B. The developer of any site that abutts a storm water retention lake or canal with a parking lot shall provide a continuous landscape buffer 4' to 5' in height at installation, with a minimum width of 15 feet. This buffer shall be planted with a mixture of deciduous trees and evergreen trees and shrubs with 90% of the planting being evergreen, see (Exhibit G) . 2.08 PARKING REQUIREMENTS A. The following minimum general requirements are applicable to all use classifications located within the property: 1. One parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area used for offices. 2. One parking space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area for research and development or one space per employee on the highest working shift, whichever is greater. 3. One parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for commercial/retail. 4. One and one-half parking spaces per hotel room. 5. As required by the City of Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance for other uses permitted within the property. 6. The size of parking stalls and handicapped allowance shall be as required by the City of Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance. 19 7. The width of parking lot drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet. 8. The color of parking lot striping shall be white. Special striping shall be as required by the City of Virginia Beach. 9. The requirements indicated above shall not relieve the site owner or lessor of the responsibility of providing ample on-site parking for actual user demands. Parking on access roads and dedicated streets shall be prohibited. 2. 09 LOADING AREAS A. Loading areas shall be designed and located so that they are not visible from public roadway view, adjacent residential neighborhood view, and view within the park. The uses of berming and landscape screening shall be employed to screen loading areas, see (Exhibit I) . B. Location of any loading areas shall be subject to the VBDA approval. 2. 10 EXTERIOR STORAGE A. Exterior storage will not be permitted. 2. 11 FENCING A. The use of fencing on any site, other than for required screening of trash or equipment, is not permitted. 20 B. Material for screening dumpsters shall be constructed of brick or similar masonry items to match building. Design is to be consistent with and complementary to the building on the site, see (Exhibit J) . C. Screen walls shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height unless approved or directed by the VBDA. D. Prior to construction, all screen walls will require VBDA approval for material, construction, location, color and overall impact. 2. 12 REFUSE FACILITIES A. Trash and garbage facilities shall be located and screened so as not to be visible from any street or right-of-way, adjoining residential neighborhoods and from any of the lake or canal areas. Screen walls shall be constructed of materials similar to building materials while gates shall be black vinyl coated chain link fence with black vinyl slats. (See paragraph 2.11 - FENCING) . A heavier pavement design section along the collection route shall be provided, see (Exhibit J) . 2.13 UTILITIES A. All utility connections, including all electrical and telephone connections and installations of wires to buildings shall be made underground from the nearest available power source. During installation there shall be no open cuts in any street at any time. No electric meter, gas meter or other meters of any type or other apparatus shall be located on any power pole nor hung on the outside of any building, but shall be placed at grade or within the building served. 21 B. Transformer or similar above ground equipment shall be placed in the most inconspicuous location possible. Where placed at grade, the equipment shall be adequately screened and all such installation shall be subject to prior written approval of the VBDA. Exterior mounted utility equipment shall be painted to match color scheme of the building, see (Exhibit I) . 2. 14 TEMPORARY FACILITIES A. Temporary facilities other than construction related facilities shall not be permitted. Construction facilities shall not be permitted within the front yards and when located in rear yards shall be removed immediately upon completion of the permanent facility. B. During construction a construction entrance installed in accordance with the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook shall be provided to prevent dirt and mud from being tracked out onto the street. If dirt, mud, etc. are tracked onto the public street, the site owner shall have it cleaned within 24 hours or VBDA will have it cleaned and charge the site owner for the service. 2.15 JOGGING TRAILS A. Each developer or owner of a site shall construct all jogging trails that pass through their property or properties, see (Exhibit B) for location and (Exhibit F) for construction. 22 ARTICLE III THE LANDSCAPE 3 . 01 LANDSCAPING A. Corporate Landing is intended to have a park setting with a strong emphasis on the landscaped environment. This emphasis will provide an overall visual continuity throughout the park and will serve as a backdrop for the development of each individual site. During the individual site development stage, the landscape architect shall give careful consideration & analysis to respond to surrounding site components such as site context, open space, landmarks, views and vistas, streetscapes and the protection of existing vegetation. In addition, the utilization of the provided list of plant materials into planting schedules, the incorporation of the General Requirements as described herein for new planting into drawings and specifications and the implementation of design criteria as illustrated in the enclosed exhibits shall be required. B. Protection of Existing Vegetation: Site developer, through sensitive grading and drainage plans, shall save stands of natural vegetation 15' outside of all proposed building walls and 5' outside of all paved areas. The building developer shall identify, "flag", and barricade up to the tree dripline such stands prior to site clearing or grading operations. Storage of materials or equipment shall not be allowed within these barriers during construction and barriers shall not be removed until finish grading of sites has been completed. All City of Virginia Beach and State of Virginia tree protection notes are applicable and shall be enforced. 23 C. General requirements of new plantings: 1. All shade trees along pedestrian walkways shall have a minimum branch hang height of 6'-8". 2. Where shrubs or groundcovers are used, "massing" is required unless otherwise approved. Extensive varieties of plants within one planting bed is discouraged. 3 . Sod rather than seeding is required within 50' of all buildings and along all adjacent roadways which the property lines front. Minimum width of sod along roadways shall be 15' if applicable. 4. Flowering trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 1/2"-2" . 5. Shade trees shall have a minimum caliper of 3 l/2"-4" except for shade trees in parking lots which shall have a minimum caliper of 2 1/2" - 3" . 6. Within the parking field and in adjacent curbed planting areas, there shall be one shade tree per 10 parking spaces with a minimum ground area of 8' x 17' surrounding the tree. 7. Continuous evergreen screening shall be required along any side of a parking lot that abutts the right-of-way of any street, lake or canal. Minimum height of plant screen along the right of way of any street shall be 30" , planted 3' o.c. ; where parking lots are visable from lakes or canals the plant screen shall be 4' to 5' in height, planted 3' o.c. Berming may be substituted and shall be a minimum height of 3' . 8. The attached plant list shall dictate varieties to be used unless otherwise allowed by the VBDA see (Exhibit D) . 9. All building entry drives shall be well landscaped with a combination of evergreen shrubs and flowering shrubs or flower beds, see (Exhibit L) . 24 10. All site utilities such as heat pumps, transformers, etc. shall be screened with an evergreen shrub with spacing not to exceed 3' o.c. Height of shrub at installation shall be a minimum height of 4' to 5' , see (Exhibit I) . 11. All visible loading docks or loading areas that abut property lines or street right of ways shall be screened with evergreen shrubs or evergreen trees. Minimum height of shrubs at installation shall be 36" with spacing not to exceed 3' o.c. , minimum height of evergreen trees shall be 4 '-5' in height with spacing not to exceed 8 ' o.c. , see (Exhibit I) . 12. For all office buildings a minimum budget of $2.00 (1990 dollars) per square foot of building is required for lawn, planting and irrigation. Each year following, the budget shall be increased 5% per year. The contractor shall submit a landscape cost estimate to the VBDA with the submittal of the construction documents. 13. All planting bed areas shall be covered with a 2" layer of shredded hardwood mulch. 14. All plant material, topsoil, mulch, fertilizers, etc. shall be subject to VBDA approval. Rejected materials shall be removed from the site without delay. 15. Location of underground utilities shall be determined prior to start of work to avoid damaging. 16. All planting operations shall be under the supervision of an experienced plantsman. 17. All landscape planting plans shall be prepared and sealed by a landscape architect certified to practice as such in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 18. All plants shall be nursery grown & shall be in accordance with the most recent edition of the "American Standard for Nursery Stock. " Spaded trees may be accepted if approved by the VBDA. 19. All entry drives into each building site shall be landscaped, see (Exhibit L) . 25 • 20. Street trees(3 1/2" - 4" caliper, 14' to 16' in height) shall be placed along all roadways, within the right of way, which properties abut or adjoin. One tree shall be provided for every 35' of property line that adjoins or abutts the roadway. Existing street trees, 75' off the property line, in both directions, if applicable, shall be located and shown on all landscape planting plans. The spacing of all new required street trees shall tie into existing trees maintaining a maximum spacing of 35' on center. See streetscape plan which shall be provided by the VBDA. 21. In addition to the above requirements all landscaping shall comply with the City of Virginia Beach Landscape Ordinance. Any discrepancy between the Design Criteria requirements and the City of Virginia Beach Landscape Ordinance, the more stringent requirements shall govern. 3.02 IRRIGATION A. Each site developed shall have an automatic irrigation system to irrigate all new trees, shrubs, seeded areas & sodded areas up to the property line and to any road edges which they adjoin or front. The irrigation system shall be designed to provide the proper water requirements to maintain healthy plant life. Lawn areas and shrub beds shall be on separate zones. 3 .03 SITE LIGHTING A. The intent is to create a uniform lighting system for the exterior lighting of the park, and shall be the fixture type shown in (Exhibit M) . Therefore, the following requirements have been established: 1. Parking light fixtures shall be a maximum height of 30' , see (Exhibit M) . 2. Low bollard fixtures or landscape lighting is recommended for walks and building entries, see (Exhibit M) . 26 3. Building mounted floods will not be permitted, except in completely internalized service courts for the research and development (R&D) areas. In each case where this is applicable the user shall obtain approval from the VBDA at the construction document approval stage. 4. Lighting in parking lots, walkways, signage and on all buildings shall be "cool white" mercury vapor lamps. Lighting in all public right-of-ways shall be high pressure sodium. 5. Lighting levels will be determined by the recognized standard of the lighting industry, as specified in the "Lighting Handbook of the Illuminating Engineering Society". Lighting levels in parking lots shall be minimum . 5 foot candles. 6. Accent lighting of buildings, landscaping and signage is required. 7. All lighting adjacent to residential areas will be placed in such a way to prevent glare or overflow lighting into these areas. 3.04 SITE FURNITURE Site furniture shall include benches, seats, tables, trash receptacles, and planters, and may be placed at building entrance plazas and at entry walks. All site furniture shall be selected from a list of standard furniture, provided by the VBDA, see (Exhibit H) . 27 Shade Trees Botanical Name Common Name Minimum Size Acer rubrum Red Maple 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Acer platanoides Norway Maple 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Betula nigra River Birch 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Ginkgo biloba (male) Ginkgo Tree 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Gleditsia triacanthos Honey-Locust 14 ' to 16 ' Ht. Varieties 3-1/2" - 4 ' Cal Nyssa Sylvatica Black Gum 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Platanus acerifolia 14 ' to 16' Ht. Bloodgood London Plane Tree 3-1/2"-4 ' Cal Quercus acutissima Sawtooth Oak 14 ' to 16 ' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal LANDSCAPE PLANTING LIST D 28 Shade Trees Botanical Name Common Name Minimum Size Quercus borealis Northern Red Oak 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak 14 ' to 16 ' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Quercus darlingtonia Darlington Oak 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Quercus nigra Water Oak 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Quercus palustris Pin Oak 14 ' to 16" Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Quercus phellos Willow Oak 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Quercus Virginiana Live Oak 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda Tree 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Taxodium Distichum Bald Cypress 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Tilia cordata Little Leaf Linden 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal Zelkova Serrata Japanese Zelkova 14 ' to 16' Ht. 3-1/2" - 4" Cal LANDSCAPE PLANTING LIST 29 Flowering Trees Botanical Name Common Name Minimum Size Acer buergeranum Trident maple 8'-10' Ht. 2-1/2" - 3" Cal Acer palmatum Greenleaf Japanese Maple 5'-6' Ht. 1-1/2" - 2" Cal Acer Palmatrum Atropurpureum Redleaf Japanese Maple 5'-6' Ht. 1-1/2" - 2" Cal Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 6'-8 ' Ht. 1-3/4" - 2" Cal - Cornus species Dogwoods 6'-8 ' Ht. 1-3/4" - 2" Cal Carataegus species Hawthorns 6'-8 ' Ht. 1-3/4" - 2" Cal Lagerstroemia indica Crapemyrtle 6'-8 ' Ht. _ 1-3/4" - 2" Cal Magnolia soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 6'-8 ' Ht. 1-3/4" - 2" Cal Magnolia Virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia 6'-8' Ht. 1-3/4" - 2" Cal Malus varieties Flowering crabapples 6'-8 ' Ht. 1-3/4" - 2" Cal Prunus cerasifera Purpleleaf Plum 6'-8 ' Ht. 'Thundercloud' 1-3/4" - 2" Cal Prunus species Flowering Cherries 6'-8 ' Ht. 1-3/4" - 2" Cal - Pyrus calleryana Bradford Pear 6'-8' Ht. 'Bradford' 1-3/4" - 2" Cal — LANDSCAPE PLANTING LIST CR) 30 Evergreen Trees Botanical Name Common Name Minimum Size Cupressocyparis leylandi Leyland Cypress 4'-5' Ht. Ilex attenuata 'Fosteri' Foster's American Holly 5'-6' Ht. Ilex opaca (Female) Berried American Holly 5'-6 ' Ht. Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia 5'-6' Ht. Pinus strobus White Pine 4 '-5 ' Ht. Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine 4 '-5' Ht. Pinus thunbergi Black Pine 4 '-5' Ht. LANDSCAPE PLANTING LIST D 31 Large Shrubs Botanical Name Common Name Minimum Size Azalea indica Indian Azalea 18"-24" Ht. & Sp. Ilex species Hollies 18"-24" Ht. & Sp. Juniperus species Junipers 18"-24" Ht. & Sp. Ralmia Latifolia Mountain Laurel 2-1/2 '-3 ' Ht. & Sp. Magnolia Virginiana Sweet Bay Magnolia 2-1/2 '-3' Ht. & Sp. Myrica cerifera Southern Wax-Myrtle 2-1/2 '-3 ' Ht. & Sp. Osmanthus Species Osmanthus 2-1/2 '-3 ' Ht. & Sp. Photinia frazieri Red Photinia 2-1/2 '-3 ' Ht. & Sp. Photinia serrulata Chinese Photinia 2-1/2 ' -3 ' Ht. & Sp. Pyracantha coccinea varieties Firethorns 2-1/2 ' -3 ' Ht. & Sp. Viburnum species Viburnums 2-1/2 '-3 ' Ht. & Sp. LANDSCAPE PLANTING LIST D 32 Medium Shrubs Botanical Name Common Name Minimum Size Abelia species Abelias 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Aucuba japonica Japanese Aucuba 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Azalea obtusum Kaempferi Kaempferi Azalea 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Berberis julianae Wintergreen Barberry 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Euonymus alatus Winged Euonymus 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Ilex species Hollies 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Juniperus species Junipers 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Myrica pennsylvania Northern Bayberry 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Pieria japonica Japanese Andromedia 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Prunus laurocerasus Schipka Cherry Laurel 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. 'Schipkaensis' Pyracantha coccinea Lowboy Firethorn 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Lalandi "Lowboy" Raphiolepsis Incica Indian Hawthorn 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Spiraea species Spireas 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. LANDSCAPE PLANTING LIST D 33 Small Shrubs Botanical Name Common Name Minimum Size Azalea kurume Kurume Azaleas 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Berberis thunbergi Crimson Pygmy 12"-15" Ht. & Sp. Atropurpurea 'Nana' Barberry Euonymus alatus Compactus Dwarf winged Euonymus 15"-18" Ht. & Sp. Ilex species Spreading Hollies 15"-18" Sp. Ilex species Non-spreading Hollies 15"-18" Ht. Juniperus species Junipers 15"-18" Sp. Nandina domestica 'Nana' Dwarf Nandina 10"-12" Ht. & Sp. Pinus mugho Mughus Mugo Pine 10"-12" Ht. & Sp. LANDSCAPE PLANTING LIST D 34 Ground Covers Botanical Name Common Name Minimum Size Cotoneaster species Cotoneasters 15"-18" Sp. Hedera helix English Ivy 2-1/4" Pot Iberis Sempervirens Evergreen Candytuft 1 qt. Juniperus horizontalis var. Creeping Juniper Varieties 15"-18" Sp. Juniperus chinensis var. Compact Juniper Varieties 15"-18" Sp. Juniperus conferta Blue Pacific Juniper 15"-18" Sp. Liriope varieties Liriope 1 qt. Ophiopogan Japonicus Mondo Grass 1 qt. Pachysandra terminalis Japanese Spurge 2-3/4" Pot Vinca minor Periwinkle 2-3/4" Pot LANDSCAPE PLANTING LIST D 35 s..s..A,�0 ., ;'., '""° ~ PLANTING TO BE PROVIDED IN FRONT hey�-i•���;R��yf�F%`>:;<` %�'%-✓ OF BUILDING AT LAKE EDGE Ili` 46i MOW AriP4 414, 04.811110.141 illihf rill ..4 ...ir f• r IA tHd STONE EDGE AS APPROVED BY TFff VBDA MAINTAIN GRASS SLOPE / �,1 �J� TO STONE AT WATERS EDGE 0 TYPICAL LAKE EDGE 36 / ` • 0 4004" ,. A* •Aillii. 0 il - . 41IPA A POI, - / .... ,N... Cit 0,..- _...44...::-•:':. , . . 4#AN.'06 ji 4 • a.01# ..,_-__46.............„ -4PAILor:..:. - ., �: Av., -:-. - AT ROAD&.s... CROSSING ROADWAY ANIF-. ::.. . i4-1111.:1.::.:.::'':: :::.:..... .11FAH-t:::L:. VA_±...1 . 10114 , . . . Aletemad,lopar f.:-..: . -74. I I 0 Plif-al • 4OPlir 1/,( A A ••':.-...- I fr$71 I 117,,_ \ "11)C \le °P ..:1' -40 7:-:.- 0 & k -_, • Ili St , ti.,...,----40.. : -.:.• 114 opAt'.,:- • 1 x 6 CEDAR EDGING '' • '' �, 'N\ ASPHALT (1-1/2' OF 5-5) • CRUSHED STONE ( 6' OF 21A OR B) F 40. • • • W .A .. :: : it 1 _ 0 ai � 1 4IIiIJJi[ IlIii �� • • III ...!4,. '.!I..�I•: .=/-"P IIII IIIl= 2 x 4 SALT TREATED 1 STAKING - 30' O.C. - - 0 SECTION O TYPICAL JOGGING TRAIL NOTE: CROWN JOGGING TRAIL AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE 37 PARKING LOT• SHADE TREES AND FLOWERING TREES ROADWAY :F#ib No Wa.. " _. ,,..,3, ,..„,..- ....„0,,,,. .,:„.„,„2. , .,_____, . .0 , :. i A- iii „go „gob... , ......„. .v.,, 3' BERMING WITH 3 : 1 •SLOPE OR 24' - 30' IN HEIGHT EVERGREEN PLANTING 22' / 15' .40, *4 0.0 W.. IMPOUNDMENT EASEMENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER 4' TO 5' IN HEIGHT LAKE OR CANAL 'I I T.YPICA SCRE6NI•NG A-T PAR'KING LOTS ,38 a) 1 co a a a .. . .•:_.,... h2,1 •• - . -.. -• ••••.• - .... .!..".i.i. • ,., . •- " s .. . Si,( 41 i'l 4-2 ;.*----,.. .. rt.?:-_,.-.."'----.4..7..t.,;.:?,17-...?:.•,;4'.' .:.‘., --(_:'-.1, A 1.AL. 1 n:1; 1 • .•., - - . ;7-1?:‘-,7•.• '••• •..' -%-•'::,'"W -•. ' , , ,,,' .k. ..-,.., , .. . : . ..--r,•• - . _, .. • 1\ ,- - .,- • ,....--. '..,--;-:•. . . . . ,... , • . .• : .. ; ...., .-•-...:•-.... .e-$. .7 - • .." - ' ••• L -.-.•-'-•'•'. ",..,,,, f- rismertestiumumw. "-i---'.--- -" •- ....- ' ' I "I I . . .1- •••• ... • • - qv,. 7144 4,X • ' • i -410•. •' -; _,-V1 It" — ,..,,--..--aw I(--.: ;-;-... -• - , :.i.• . • i ,%to.. .'.,•J1 1.;"I . ,. '41: .).7-':•%.,\/.. -'• . i' .:i4t.t.''F'` - ...i.r.74 . . : • •; -!;•.':%.1-• .2..&• . .:-. : if.,-,:#;;iie, , • ,..:. ...if..1.•.)i•;••••••!..1;;-: . ';'4••%. .1.f , jt....,....,!.! ,, .', Akiffer, '.._ i..: II ::•-,,. . - ':.''.:2St.i.:81-..4Pi.g.4...' '.1'. k.:....0,:ve .::.. :1.....,co, ! Tic,,-.1--,. ... , . ,.-,1,....L-;..s..,,.. . .. . . 4 ...'..7.:; '.4:"4e• . ---'lif ,4.7-,.:.t.:,.;it.7s.vremf ..!. • . . ....L.;%.*47:.... .2.711.:111. 4‘..c.i.iie...:112,:.A.13:11:c..i.,.x?" :. 1:.el.: :I.,- .rtif.111 II P...v.,..-k •NI,..-,„ r ,r,.,..„10., .4 .. ...... . -.•7 -- . ...k.?!.t. 3S.:,,21c.7 :..', ' - .. : •‘-• 11 170,.. wo 11.1 vr.-.A. -t-,r;.4-.,.-• lik.......v..-Ity .4 . .; . fiiiittlt ;,,,,,f4trumr A .....„..i. .,;,-.11.7.v.!Iv f‘ :vs-.Ar ,.• • . •itt, .. ",W,.. ' , A ": .0.k 4 1$ .1. .... AV- ',kr', ....eft ' 1%‘ 4fr -1, '-`t.m'-4D4r2 • ' 1•.'.--.-"....',-,; •',.•.-.-.,•..I.Ti i .. ;AI vi ''r'ILAre""-4---• . ' - .414-=',.re* . fir 1,14 • ::-14 •11‘: .' •1.. :'4:4f-.4 •Ai.,,, - :4::,`,0, • yirg, '3 A . - V 4 I'.•‘'tt-lt; 1 ..1$...;,.. ide/ x ' ,• . . - .1 ••IA • •-. ..:.;sT.:, ' / . \ .;:'..t.:, li:::'•''. -„ • „ . .. ...M. . / , :., ' ', 1 t;.• . •- —. 4 ',,A j //,'. - 4117.1 r • .•.: ., \. .!.......\ . l':':,., -,-• . - - .• '. ',.,/,,n/71 • . .4.15•!,4,i:il. 1; .. . . \• .1 .4... 11 ••1'hi \ \''' I • .-. . ..__.. .. . i ',..;,:-.:..•= `1-'-. --' ,' .41 ' : r:. ' " .c-'•'''''',-.. I :=..--.., ;! t,i; ' . '" r4;...iel..AN:::i: ..711t?...!. .1- t /1 -.!--,•".'" - ":. .- -,-. ,., : r .•,,,- %. Ite 1 • 0.....i!., .....1::,...•• ,. .t. • ,.....: . -...r..,„:•..• - :„..,•. -..,• .=-.. ( :1... •:.,. 1 . ,.w.... .. .. . 1, i , 4, ‘ : - • 1 111 a % . ..4e.:•-,•',..:. •;$,.. A•4-4\;-0'..1 • . — . . . . • .••••••;:r4,1..t• 'I N'. • ',,I.L..."?.4.1;:. !. . ••• ... .. . '..11 • liere..117. . . • •:- ..,•• - ' ; • . , , .,,f 442, ,:‘ ' , ‘i, . ..:.,.. . • . I ''''' :' \.11'. I 14 \ 't • Nt • cr.,:- 1 :1•?.4',....f; ,,t . ,..!:. j •! . • •-:-.-.-. A,. .: , . - t.:, \ cr, , ,,,,,..;.t.: .: ,.., _ - . -.- ,• - .- - . IA \ \ I • Y•I!,Is'i':.;.•,T 7 N. s' *" frlf,p,ywr. .•-• , 't- , .. . . oc ..- :41;c't-t-v .•,. .:. t ' 'D LW ilk' t:;,,, ::;g •' •, -..11:.--. :;-:,..:.::-,:..;:.i,F,,4.vf....' N ' a a 1. , , , ►--PROPERTY LINE (NOT APPLICABLE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES) •;1;c1;iits, EVERGREEN TREES 0 6' MIN. T mokifft. : ti)-0---5\___Ecr (/-03\-41.7.... LOADING Al WAREHOUSE EVERGREEN SHRUB MASSING 3' TO 4' HEIGHT et: I BLDG. (V1/1#1 isr ra f «: :c:_ i I� �A1� ���I !oft,I� ►ft, 10' MIN. n 1ti v � .` TRANSFORMER Ere"'&\ y}.(``�-"`, ',OWLrt:, ,,,:-.40"-,,e ,el, • :ti•:{.:33K:{•:•:Fi*•:•% :EK::;':•::ti ::.:.:::::::.::::::.:::.::.::::.:.: {t tYyy y ..... :.. .. V..r. .. -_,, ,\;.,, .r r,* Me $.4-;.t- ...„... ..... I r �'qe.iw '',\: Liii„ ILIA'' ;*14°41°rr,,••ii,„,''rr''''I�� r� EVERGREEN SHRUB ;fin,. 4 -e-,i,Ps.`'. MASSING 3' TO 4' HEIGHT �`�If' 111I�f'1 Plk\1;e4 1 ' TRANSFORMER ' _ ' u��; ' ' 3' MULCH WITH 0rr-`'r/% %"\�� rl , SOIL SEPERATOR 1 .<irl���� �,r !IiiiMP,''' EVERGREEN SHRUB MASS 3' TO 4' HEIGHT tp I Ill /I/ 1..11... I1, 1... 11) IaaA11lJL.1.. IAlll OVARIOUS SCREENING REQUIREMENTS SITE UTILITIES AND LOADING DOCKS 40 BRICK ROWLOCK 81 AS REQ'D. lit B' it—Jr- 5 i: % ��A BRICK = ow j// ///// fuse i IA MIN WWI 1- �� 1/2' E.J. r r> > FINISHED GRADE ��� CONC. SLAB m PIPI //% W/ W.W.F. // m 8' CMU ot� ►��'��1�i� HIGHEST POINT BLACK VINYL COATED CONC. FOOTING ���4 "." p•O 11 r4 W/ REINFORCING .0 CHAIN LINK FENCE GATE ♦�, ff W/BLACK VINYL SLATS wiiiiii���j TO MATCH WALL H.T. �a • g DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE PLAN WALL SECTION O DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE NO SCALE 41 DECIDUOUS TREE, MINIMUM SIZE AT INSTALLATION 2 1/2' - 3' CALIPER, - 72' - 14' HEIGHT fit EVERGREEN SFRUBS MINIMUM FfK?if � EVERGREEN TREE ANVMUM FEIGiT AT INSTALLATION 2'-3',WITH , AT INSTALLATION 4'- 5' WITH ULTIMATE HEIGHT OF 10'AT MATURITY - - ULTIMATE HEIGHT OF 30'AT MATURITY t, / s '1► f N.A... 4jp..t.704 . ir.-,..vkl '' i ° frti 116 I 00:911M- L.' 11 1 11 PROPERTY LINE OF 3:1 MAX.SEEDED SLOPE I RESIDENTIAL ZONE 1 - I if 10'MIN. L 10'MIN_ t 75'SET BACK ZONE I NOTE:RANTING SHALL PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS VISUAL BUFFER IN A SERPENTINE PATTERN © SCREENING ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. ZONES 42 SHADE TREE (TYPICAL) FLOWERING TREE (TYPICAL) EVERGREEN SHRUB MASSING TO CURB ✓_?. , �i ti lip�• %� L., (dill alk or ILA!.4 Orli-10 At Ir . .„ > ,_ ,, . 4 Ills1,ill P• „II,i, + rk 4 Iiir AilieL4*- Iii:1' �1►i, igi Viigi 611!U glir it-- vii: 4mr agati:_ _ ..1 _.. ,,z...i ...... 11 locti 40------ nsilii A. 101 1., „__=_.- ..-......1, 11.7,1;:r k„.11ek lopro /JA. x qv, 4 pii r Too. _ 4,-----w4o. ig,_„tip- ,,, ,. r.,- -:::. sc -Iv A W./ �i �rli 4._ • b t; � IR .,!„...7,,,k::"4 .new - fir.:► � Q � ro: i• P'It lir rozifk,,..iiki 1 . 'la. ... (r.,.____,,-„,. CONTINUOUS 24' HEIGHT MEDIAN EVERGREEN EVERGREEN HEDGE SHRUB MASSING Note: The drawings above are at a conceptual level to indicate the design intent. The landscape architect shall respond to all required City of Virginia Beach visibility triangles for intersections. OTYPICAL BUILDING ENTRY DRIVES 43 a Q wauillIllIllIllIllIllw. ... . . .,1..,..:,,,,,..111 , 1 43, i 1 v. ,..w3~,, .. ',`,i 111. if j T`: L',.., :, ''j‘.i f�.i s ''.'... :, . .I''.:01! . -,I'f, �.tvi�' ••-.!&_ _w r.'�:4.. 's::ive.,,,§-,.;: !4• 1��:ci5. • ••,. .is •:s. • .�>,-,- 3-s- .. •'` =1. �``••a? l:ct�•q'z:y�•.. } "LM" \•.: �1''.. • +.N'"" J k •1M • '<,� .• '2, dl s4 1 `• • G ,• yi _ r_ tea: s ': .$% , "ii y F ',r,7 .jl Crtf:, ''' -..."011.ti. '„,--k-..1.1-.. ....-"r. -..;:::,-,-;-,..f-'3;.-,, "'"; ;'.., 1•5,41 , -' ' a ;oww•+�� == z. ,;,-¢• Amor-"'"'"; ,.,— , ....74:—AVI":-— . "..t... ilrAh. a * „-:*' _I 41 .. '-/ ..- --' 0,1,W..--, .. :444;•. , el. , i t, ..,.. _•. „,.:{.., c..4-atc, — vs:Ai. ,.- r i C4 ;1J ..ems , Z 4/1 \ ..zr-,•,-;;;•'.4%,.-- ",...-1_,;•---.V,---.1 D , Vr f' - X 3 .ram MJ.ti<; ~_'' J,( lei,/„!- •, 1-V: ra'i;, -• ?ate I -. -;* ' ilawissi °1111 f , 1 1 1. 1 1 • ARTICLE IV SIGNAGE 4.01 BUILDING SIGNAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Background: The graphics system will serve to identify, inform and direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic in an aesthetically pleasing manner, in addition to efficiently and effectively moving the traffic throughout the complex. The implementation of a coordinated system is facilitated in the fact that Corporate Landing as a development is being constructed in a planned manner with other protective architectural controls. B. Building Identification: 1. General: The signage exhibits for the buildings within this criteria have been designed to address all building types and functions that will exist within the complex. The system has been designed to provide the following signage types: a. There may be one free-standing site sign for each complex or cluster of buildings within the LDO and the R&D districts, see (Exhibit P) . b. There may be tenant signs on the buildings, see (Exhibit Q) . c. There may be one individual site sign for each building within the MDO district, see (Exhibit 0) . d. There may be one individual site sign for the MXD and MXD2 districts, identifying the name of the MXD and MXD2 centers, see (Exhibit R) . 45 e. Lettering, unless otherwise approved by the VBDA, for all exterior building signage and exterior temporary signage shall be the lettering style optima medium, except for the park entry sign which shall be optima semi bold. C. Location: 1. General: The location of all signs shall be as recommended and approved by the VBDA. All site signs setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance. D. Construction: 1. General: All signs shall be constructed and designed in accordance with the design criteria and in accordance with the sign exhibits. In addition, all signs shall comply with the City of Virginia Beach City Zoning Ordinance. E. Ancillary Signage: 1. All sign support structures and the rear of each sign face shall be painted DuPont Imrom Black or equivalent. All signage placed in the right-of-way shall conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) . However, "Jogging Trails", "Please Drive Slowly", etc. shall not be used in the right-of-way. 2. Regulatory Signs: Standard Department of Transportation (DOT) signs will be utilized, see (Exhibit T) . 3. Informational Signs: These signs, for example, "Jogging Trails", "Please Drive Slowly", etc. , will utilize similar materials in construction as described in Paragraph E. 1, above. 46 F. Temporary Signage 1. General: No temporary signs will be permitted except as described below, see (Exhibit T) . a. Temporary construction signs shall be permitted during the construction of the permanent facility and shall be removed upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy by the City of Virginia Beach. All temporary signs shall be ground mounted. One project construction sign shall be permitted and shall be located parallel to the street and shall include only the following information: Building Name Developer Architect Landscape Architect Consulting Engineers General Contractor Major Tenants Lending Institution b. No subcontractor signs shall be permitted. The temporary construction sign outlined above shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet within the property line and adjacent to the construction trailer. No construction signs will be permitted off site. c. One real estate sign shall be permitted per building and shall be allowed for 6 months. Following this period, additional approval shall be obtained from the VBDA, see (Exhibit T) . 47 G. Plan Submittal and Approval Procedures: The VBDA will consider each site individually. All tenant signs on buildings, as shown in (Exhibit R) , shall be submitted with the construction documents for each building. Four (4) sets of plans of the proposed signage must be submitted to the VBDA prior to their submission to the City of Virginia Beach. Upon approval, one (1) set will be returned to the tenant/owner and three (3) sets will be retained by the VBDA. The plans should include the following: Sign elevation depicting proposed copy. - Site plan with location of proposed signage. - Shop drawings outlining construction details. - Landscaping plan for area surrounding signage with lighting and any required berming. H. Violation and/or non-compliance with the above procedures will allow the VBDA to remove the non-conforming sign at the expense of the owner/tenant. I. Maintenance of all signs shall be required by all tenant/owners. Signs shall be kept cleaned and painted as required to maintain the state of quality that existed at the time of installation. 48 FRONT VIEW AREA FOR LOGO 1/4" X 11"H. .125 GAUGE ALUMINUM POLISHED ALUMINUM SIDE VIEW PRIMED AND PAINTED T F`i*PFp.S MOUNTED TO AS SPECIr'1r�.). SIGN FACE — BOTH SIDS. 1' - 0' 6 10' - 6' 1-1/2" X 1/4" SOLID Q Q itPOLISHED AiIUM BAND MOUNTED TO SIGN - _,,�._\ o FACE. TYPICAL ,a -it-- BOTH SiIJ . --- —'k H CORPORATE LANDING . 1/4' a+ •ir- TYP. c— .,— 0 A PLANNED CORPORATE COMMUNITY pi • • 1/4" X 5"H. POLISHED ALUMINUM / . !--a--N LETTERS MCUN ED TO FACE OF BASE. CONCRETE BASE POSITION AS SWAN BOTH SIDES. FINISHED GRADE 45° r 4 'N \ FOOTINGS AS REQUIRED 16' - 0' CIPARK ENTRY SIGN 49 NOTE: CENTER PIECE SHAD, BE PAINTED AN INDIVIDUAL FRONT VIEW OOORR TO CENTER COORDINATE PIECE TO SIDE VIEW wrrx ILO, MDO, 3' - 6' BE 1/2" AREAS R&D, AND MXD AREA FOR /6• 2' - 6' 6' SQL M ' PAFcK OF TLOGO PLATE YP pD4-_ ,k AND 1/a" X 5-1/2" — r Pam. 1--... — TOP VIEW POLISHED �� o ALUMINUM :1- N1" X --k LETTERS /1/4" MOUNTED TO _ CORPORATE / SOLID SIGN FACE. 3"H Lwri�.s LANDING' AO LISHED ALUMINUM ]M GRAPHIC GUI' 2411-2578 BAND AND SPRAYED OR N N1aJNI�D PERIMETER TO SIGN M SILYSCREENED PARKWAY IN HIGHGLOSS FACE.— IMRON PAINT - — .125 POSITIONED AS GAUGE SHOWN. . AIIMINUM PRIMED \ FINISHED GRADE AND _ PAINTED. FOOTINGS AS REQUIRED . INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SIGN O EXAMPLE OF FREESTANDING SIGN TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUAL BUILDING WITHIN MDO AREA 50 NOTE: CENTER PIECE FRONT VIEW SHALL BE AREA LOGO -FOR SIDE VIEW AN AL 4' - 8' COIDR TO 1' - 0' COORDINATE 8' 3' - 4' B' • • wrilI IDO, 1/4" X 7"H t TYP.j MW R&D POLISHED — — _,k1r AND�MXD ALUMINUM 135 ao } ....,....--CENTER PIECE AREAS OF THE LETTERS __srTO BE 1/2" ^""1 PARK. ..---- SIGN S'1'EKL PLATE SIGN FACE. 1 PRIMED AND TOP VIEW I PAINTED. (��J a —�t- 6 \ 4"H IEITE S CORPORATE — — 1" X 1/4" _ GRAPHIC CUT LANDING SOLID AND SPRAYED POLISHED OR M p IN HIGH 2411-4829 �, To SIGN A - in I- POS m• c DAM NECK AS snc' ROAD .125 GAUGE I _ PRIMED AND �� PAINTED. 0 FINISHED GRADE- iv i - \ \ FOOTINGS AS REQUIRED BUILDING CLUSTER SIGN P EXAMPLE OF FREESTANDING SIGN TO IDENTIFY A CLUSTER,OF TWO OR MORE BUILDINGS WITHIN 1.00 AND R&D AREAS 51 LOGO IF DESIRED, WHITE VINYL air LITERS PREFERABLE - MAX SIZE 1'-0" X 1'-0". COPY AREA FOR TENANT NAME SIGNAGE PANEL, AREA, MATERIAL AND COLOR TO MATCH STOREFRONT. r U IL I U L__, L,- The above drawings is to serve as an example to illustrate how tenant names on the buildings for the MXD and R&D areas shall be an integral part of the architectural facade of each building. The tenant signage system shall accompany the submittal of the construction documents to the VBDA for approval. This will be required for each and every building. Q TENANT SIGNS ON BUILDINGS EXAMPLE OF, SIGN TO IDENTIFY NAME OF TENANT 52 ES V321V XCIV,1 NIHIIM soma11(18 AALLNiO1 01 NDIS ONIoNV1S33113 30 31dWVX3 NDIS 1N3WdOl3A3a 3Sfl GRIN Q321111D321 cV 40N11ood 1 \ Z. iaVIIO 03HSINI1 N 'NMONS�*��t*� S1 QH!7N�� LTLTITry�� .'�"IOlLL IS 11 •Qawrid 7///' l vaDt`TIc MU I 1 ----lyUI WCININITIV _ - �' Q 2DMIS Q V O a/ a1XWdS QIN A _ ��3 MIS aL �1D3N WbQ / � Hilt CFLINCION arms - W 5t4 H-o1 o11r o CO •DILI NDIS arms 1-- --I QL QSstuX la tit X la ► SIELLLTI V _ am-tsriod L MIL X 117/I WV Q3NIl ld I.-- - I 'OJC7I QPIK awid 774.T,S SINN 2131,tID M3IA d O l uz/I al Ws /A L_ _f IN3143CrIatOQ S05Id Hamm - SSn F co •?Mc! SRL .10 SK321V ? 5£L t 'ZOO QXFI QMd 'ma 'caw 'cm HIM S.LYNIQ2I000 QL 2ICI00 3 3 • .ill .b - £ ,g rINIMIAIQta NY QaI d au 'YAMS aDSId 2I3,IIm :MON .o - ,l ,g - ,q 090'I M3IA 3CIIS M3IA 1NO213 et in 2 6 LC)j q 1/ ,=________ tfl H Z if' , I ;Li r'Ll 0 11.6 52 1:14 Et(3) Mmi . z ,... ci) 0 1 iiii" iüftr W > t NO .•L ;:. :Ries! • r > ___ > ~ ® a2Z N:: O .... WO .. OZ et, " ` 4 CC • - A y 2. 0 H ;MEW Z? ( i l OMLI 1 ra X w N 1 1 mi i,, L300D 'VA )13d ..... w /AC e- ik':*.4-''-u2,',: t.,,,,,-4.V.gsve4,1 i N �66,1 crs > 1-- 2x >- el. \ #`; � Nf6 w D 1 Q6 g R • h N �.� `►7L1ill M i� QCl� 1 I 1 1 i NOTE: mow AND BACK OF PLYWOOD SIGN FACE AND WOOD 4'-per SLATS TO BE PAINTED, AS it APPROVED. ALL GRAPHICS AND LETTERS TO BE WHITE. \ \ 1— 4.TYP. rBUILDING NAME �% — 3/4" TREATED PLYWOOD LOGO, ETC. NI;r. OF / COPY AREA 4'-0.MAX. Nt DEVELOPERS -I ab NAME, LOGO, ETC. ARCHITECT g 1 REALTORS NAME II LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 5 b LOGO, ETC. CONSULTING ENGINEER 3 zr 1 GENERAL CONTRACTOR MAJOR TENANTS eE b zo L FINANCIAL INSTITUTION .2� 4'TYP. T (-T- �� T �r T1'-T1 L C 4" X 4" TREATED WOOD POST. 4" TREATED WOOD SLATS FOOTING AS REQUIRED - TYPICAL EQUALLY SPACED TO GRIXJND TEMPORARY SIGN REALTOR SIGN 0 TEMPORARY AND REALTOR SIGN 55 ARTICLE V: THE BUILDING 5. 01 APPLICABLE CODES A. Construction of all facilities within Corporate Landing are governed by the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Code and the State of Virginia Statewide Building Code, latest ammended edition. 5.02 BUILDING DESIGN CONCEPT A. Corporate Landing offers the highest quality of design and creativity in the park's building construction. In order to insure the development of a harmonious corporate environment, the following design parameters have been established. B. The General Building Concept is to build one story to multi-story buildings, set in a landscaped environment that maintains an aesthetic continuity throughout the park. Each designer is encouraged to express individuality and creativity while blending his or her design into the sites surrounding context. The general design context should reflect a high quality, modern corporate image. Colonial or historical designs shall not be permitted. All designs are subject to the VBDA's approval. It is intended that the basic harmony of the park's architecture shall prevail so that no building shall detract from the attractiveness of the overall environment. 5.03 EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND TREATMENT A. Exterior building materials shall be of types that are durable and permanent in quality and appearance. Exterior finishes should require little or no maintenance. Wood and metal siding is prohibited. Recommended architectural materials are glass, granite, pre-cast concrete, and brick. 56 B. Glazing shall be the type to prevent vision from the exterior to the inside during daylight hours, i.e. reflective glazing or black glazing. C. Sealant shall match mortar color. D. All roof top or grade mounted equipment shall be painted black and screened with a permanent material such as masonry or equal. E. Exposed louvers, similar metal panels inserts, or penthouse enclosures are to be painted to match the masonry color or predominant metal color on the building. F. Exposed handrails shall be painted to match the predominant metal on the building unless an exception is given for high quality finished metals, such as polished bronze or stainless steel. G. Roof ballast shall be a standard James River Stone tan in color. 5.04 COLOR OF MATERIALS A. Colors, materials, and finishes are to be coordinated in a consistent manner on all elevations. B. In order to maintain aesthetic continuity within the park, bright overall colors shall not be permitted. However, bright colors can be used for accents, such as entry doors, or trim and shall be as approved by the VBDA. 57 5.05 BUILDING HEIGHTS A. The building height limitation shall be as indicated under Article 1.02, items 1 through 5. 5.06 SCREENING AND LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT A. Dumpsters shall be located on grade at the rear of the building whenever possible. All dumpsters shall be screened by a brick wall or other masonry materials approved by the VBDA, see (Exhibit J) . B. All mechanical equipment, grade mounted or roof mounted, shall be enclosed or screened by opaque glass, metal or masonry, so as to be an integral part of the Architectural design and not visible from adjacent streets. 58 ARTICLE VI: REVIEW OF PLANS BY VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 6.01 INTRODUCTION A. Corporate Landing is governed by a series of recorded covenants which are available upon request by any developer or owner interested in Corporate Landing. These covenants and restrictions are in place to insure the proper and most appropriate development of the business park through the implementation of uniform standards. Furthermore, all pertinent requirements of public agencies shall be followed in the development of this property and all plans for development of a specific site shall be approved by the VBDA and approved by the City of Virginia Beach and public agencies having jurisdiction. B. The requirements contained in this criteria have been based on reliable sources; however, we do not preclude the potential of later modifications. Each buyer shall be responsible for verification of all code requirements at the time of purchase and development. C. The maintenance of Corporate Landing will be handled by a separate Association specifically designed to insure proper care of the common areas, including landscaping, lighting and signage. 59 6. 02 PROCEDURES A. Prior to commencement of the development of any project design, the project owner and the design professionals are required to participate in an introduction to Corporate Landing Master Plan Concept. This introduction will consist of a presentation on the development concept, as presented by the VBDA's design representative. Such meetings will be arranged by the park developer at the building developer's request. B. Prior to the commencement of any site improvements such as construction or alteration of buildings, fence enclosures, paving, grading, drainage, or any other permanent improvements on any site, the Owner, leasee or occupant of any site shall first submit Plans and Specifications for such improvements to the VBDA for its written approval and approval by the City of Virginia Beach. At that time an application fee will be required by the Applicant. 6.03 REVIEW OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Four complete sets of plans shall be submitted for each review. Four (4) sets shall be retained for the VBDA's files. Plans shall be submitted to the VBDA at the following stages of planning and design: A. Schematic Design B. Construction Documents 60 6.03. 1 Approved construction documents by the City of Virginia Beach with any City comments shall be submitted to the VBDA for approval at the construction document submittal stage. A. AT SCHEMATIC/PRELIMINARY REVIEW, THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBMITTED: 1. SITE PLAN - Scale: 1" = 40'-0" Minimum a. Site plan and site coverage ratio: building and paving b. Building location, overall dimensions, height, finish floor elevations c. Setback lines d. Site circulation e. Site signage location f. Preliminary grading plan indicating drainage patterns. g. Connections to existing utility lines h. Landscaping: preliminary landscape plan i. Amount and location of employee and guest parking j . Location of trash collection area k. Location of walks, and drives 1. Loading areas m. Site lighting n. Signage 2. BUILDING DESIGN - Scale: 1/8" = 1' -0" a. Floor plans b. Elevations, in color or with color samples. Scale 1/8" = 1'0" c. Perspective rendering desirable 61 • d. Building materials specification list e. Location and size of all exterior mechanical and electrical equipment both at grade and on the roof. f. Preliminary review shall be concerned with building materials, colors and finishes, architectural treatment and rooflines. B. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT REVIEW: 1. a. Elevations in color with samples of exterior materials as specified in the contract documents. b. City of Virginia Beach approved architectural, engineering, and landscape architectural working drawings and specifications. c. Approval of plans must be given by the VBDA prior to commencement of any construction. 2. LANDSCAPE DESIGN - Minimum scale: 1" = 25' . a. General location, types and sizes of trees, shrubs and ground covers b. Extent of seeding and/or sodding c. Extent of clearing d. Existing trees and wooded areas e. Areas to be irrigated f. Location of trash collection area g. Proposed walks, steps and retaining walls h. Building entrances and plazas i. Location of major signage j . Landscape cost estimate as required under 3 .01 item C-12. 62 6.04 BASIS OF APPROVAL A. Review and approval will be based on standards set forth in the Declaration and the Design Criteria. Plans will be reviewed not only for the quality of the specific proposal, but also the project's effect and impact on its neighbors and on the general park character. Evaluation will be made of spatial relationships among and between buildings and other surrounding elements. Careful concern will be given to location and treatment of utility and service facilities with the intent of minimizing detrimental visual and environmental impact. B. Site ingress and egress shall be reviewed for efficient flow of traffic within the site and on abutting streets. C. If plans and specifications are not sufficiently complete or are otherwise inadequate, the VBDA shall reject them as being inadequate. Approval of design will be good for a one (1) year period, after which time, if construction has not started the building developer will be required to resubmit. D. After approval of the contract documents by the VBDA, any change in exterior materials or exterior colors during construction, shall be approved by the VBDA prior to ordering of materials. 6.05 REVIEW COMMITTEE A. Committee shall be composed of the VBDA's Industrial Parks Committee. The Industrial Parks Committee shall be entitled to approve minor variations to those portions of the Design Criteria not encompassed by the zoning proffers of record affecting the property. 63 B. The Parks Committee shall receive comments and recommendations as to whether the Plans submitted should be approved or rejected from staff members and the Authority's consultants who are knowledgeable in the fields of architecture, engineering and landscape architecture. C. When questions of judgement or interpretation arise, the decision of the VBDA is final and binding on all parties. D. Any revisions, additions, or alterations to any portion of approved plans shall be subject to review and approval. E. Neither Corporate Landing or the VBDA or its successors or assigns shall be liable in damages to anyone submitting plans to them for approval, or to any owner or occupant of land affected by this Declaration, by reason of mistaken judgement, negligence or nonfeasance, arising out of or in connection with the approval or disapproval or failure to approve any such plans. Every person, corporation, partnership, or organization who submits plans to the VBDA or Declarant for approval agrees, by the submission of such plans, and every owner or occupant of any of the property agrees by acquiring title thereto or an interest therein, that he, she or it will not bring any action, proceeding or suit against the VBDA or Declarant to recover any such damages. 6. 06 REVIEW TIME A. The VBDA shall receive proposals for review, a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the second Tuesday of each month. The review comments shall be available from the VBDA office within two weeks of that second Tuesday. 64 • 6.07 PUBLIC APPROVALS A. All pertinent requirements of public agencies shall be followed in the development of this property. Plans shall be submitted concurrently both to the City of Virginia Beach and to the VBDA. Each buyer must verify code requirements at the time of purchase and development. B. Although based on local zoning and subdivision regulations, the Corporate Landing Design Criteria may be more restrictive in land use, site development standards, landscape requirements, or in other matters. In every case in which these criteria are at variance with public agency requirements, the more restrictive regulations shall govern. In the event of any inconsistency between the Deed and the Design Criteria, the provisions of the Deed shall control. DESIGN CRITERIA AUTHORED BY: CMSS ARCHITECTS CREDIT GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING FOR REVIEW AND ASSISTANCE IN PREPARATION OF THIS DESIGN CRITERIA: LANGLEY AND McDONALD VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT *Reproduction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without written permission of CMSS Architects violates the copyright laws of the United States and will be subject to legal prosecution. 65 CORPORATE LANDING DESIGN CRITERIA Virginia Beach,Virginia CMSS Project No. 93-000.46 S A R C H I T E C T S • ADDENDUM#2 AUGUST 18, 1998 1. Page 13,Exhibit C: delete and replace with Exhibit C(see the end of this addendum for Exhibit C). 2. Page 15, item 2.02 A: delete entire line which begins"Maximum floor area ratio..." and delete item 1. 3. Page 20, item 2.09 A, delete in its entirety and replace with the following: All loading docks that are visible from the lake area, adjoining properties, street right-of-ways, or from within the park shall be screened with a 10' high screen wall that matches the materials used on the building. The appearance of the wall shall then be softened in its entirety with large evergreen shrubs or evergreen trees. Minimum height of shrubs at installation shall be 3' to 4' with spacing not to exceed 3' on center. Minimum height of evergreen trees at installation shall be 6' to 8' with spacing not to exceed 8' on center. The extent of the screen wall and landscaping shall be subject to VBDA approval(see Exhibit I), 4. Page 20, item 2.11 A,delete "other than for required screening of trash or equipment," 5. Page 21,item 2.11 C,delete"Eight(8) feet"and replace with Ten(10) feet. 6. Page 21, item 2.12 A,"Refuse Facilities"delete in its entirety. 7. Page 21, item 2.13 A, add the following statement at the end of the paragraph "If placed at grade outside the building such devices shall be screened in accordance with Section 3.01 C-11." 8. Page 22, item 2.13 B, delete in its entirety and replace with the following: All site utilities such as transformers, meters, and heat pumps shall be screened in their entirety with evergreen shrubs. Minimum height of shrubs at installation shall be 3' to 4' with spacing not to exceed 3' on center(see Exhibit 1). 9. Page 22, item 2.15 A, delete "Exhibit B for location and Exhibit F for construction" and replace with "Exhibit F and the Jogging Trail Master Plan (Exhibit F1). A full size drawing of the Jogging Trail Master Plan is available from the VBDA showing layout and design intent." Prepared by CMSS Architects.P.C. Page 1(3.1'12 F:193 JOUS193000193000.461Rddendtun(2)6-17-98.doc 10. Pages 24, 25, and 26, delete item 3.01 C "General requirements of new plantings", 1-21 in their entirety and replace with the following: General Requirements for new Plantings: • 1. All shade trees along pedestrian walkways and in parking lots shall have a minimum branching height of 6'-8' above finished grade. 2. Where shrubs or ground covers are used, "massing" is required. Extensive varieties of plans within the planting bed is • discouraged. Spacing of low shrubs shall not exceed 3'on center and ground cover shall not exceed 12" on center. 3. Sod rather than seeding is required within 50' of all buildings; all adjoining roads shall have sod along the entire property line from the road edge to the parking lot edge. The minimum width of sod along road edges where there is no parking lot shall be 30'. All other lawn areas not receiving sod may be seeded as approved by the VBDA. 4. Flowering trees shall be the size indicated on the landscape planting list, (see Exhibit D). 5. Shade trees shall be the size indicated on the landscape planting list, (see Exhibit D) except for parking lots and required residential buffer berms which shall be a minimum caliper of 2 /2•-3 inches. 6. There shall be one shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces with a minimum ground area of 8' x 17' within the parking field and in adjoining curbed planting areas. Only one tree may be provided for each 9' x 18' island in a parking lot. Minimum spacing between trees in parking lot islands shall be 25'-0" unless otherwise approved by the VBDA. 7. A continuous evergreen screening hedge shall be required along any side of a parking lot that abuts the right-of-way of any street or the lake. Where parking lots are visible from any street, the minimum height of the screening hedge at installation shall be 30" minimum planted 3' on center. Berming a minimum height of 3' with approved planting may be substituted to the hedge (see Exhibit G). Where parking lots are visible from the lake, the minimum height of the screening hedge at installation shall be 4'to 5'planted 3' on center. 8. The attached plant list shall dictate varieties to be used unless otherwise approved by the VBDA. Minimum size of plants at installation shall be as defined on the Planting List unless otherwise indicated (see Exhibit D). 9. All site entry drives shall be well landscaped with a combination of evergreen shrubs, flowering shrubs, deciduous shade trees, flowering trees,and flower beds. (see Exhibit L). • Prepared by CUSS Architects,P.C. Page 2 of 12 F:193•JOBS193000193OOO.461Addendwn(2)6-17-98.doc 10. Grade mounted mechanical equipment such as cooling towers and air-handling equipment shall be screened in their entirety with a screen wall that matches the materials used on the building. The height of the wall shall be 1' higher than the site utility. The appearance of the wall shall then be softened in its entirety with large evergreen shrubs or evergreen trees. Minimum height of shrubs at installation shall be 3' to 4' with spacing not to exceed 4' on center. Minimum height of evergreen trees shall be 6' to 8'with spacing not to exceed 8'on center. • 11. All site utilities such as transformers, meters, and heat pumps shall be screened in their entirety with evergreen shrubs. Minimum height of shrubs at installation shall be 3'to 4'with spacing not to exceed 3' on center(see Exhibit I). 12. All dumpsters shall be screened on three sides with a brick screen wall. Screen wall gate is required and shall be black • vinyl coated chain link fence with black vinyl slats. Gate height to match that of screen wall. Color of wall brick shall match building brick or as approved by the VBDA (see Exhibit J).The appearance of the wall shall then be softened in its entirety with large evergreen shrubs. Minimum height of shrubs at installation shall be 3' to 4' with spacing not to exceed 3' on center. 13. For all buildings a minimum landscape budget shall be established according to the following chart. The budget shall be established by multiplying the gross building square footage times the cost per square foot. The landscape budget shall be limited to the following items: seeding,sod, irrigation,plant materials,and fine grading for seed and sod areas. The contractor shall submit a detailed landscape cost estimate to the VBDA with the submittal of the construction documents. Gross Bldg. S.F. Cost/S.F. Gross Bldg. S.F. Cost/S.F. 30,000 &under 2.40 110,000 1.92 40,000 2.34 1.20,000 1.86 50,000 2.28 130,000 • 1.80 60,000 2.22 . 140,000 1.74 70,000 2.16. . 150,000 1.68 80,000 2.10 160,000 1.62 90,000 2.04 • 170,000 1.56 100,000 1.9& 180,000& over 1.50 Note: For building square footage in-between stated gross building square footage, interpolate accordingly to the nearest 1,000 square feet of building to determine the landscape budget. 14. All planting bed areas shall be covered with a 3-inch layer of shredded hardwood mulch. Prepared by CMSSArchitects,P.C. .Page 3 of 12 F:193-JODS193000193000.461Addendum(2)6-17-93.doc 15. All plant material, topsoil, mulch, fertilizers, etc. shall be subject to the VBDA's approval. Rejected materials shall be removed from the site immediately. 16. Location of underground utilities shall be determined prior to start of work to avoid damage to utilities. 17. All planting operations shall be under the supervision of an experienced plainsman. 18. All plans shall be prepared and sealed by a Virginia certified or registered landscape architect. 19. All plants shall be nursery grown and shall be in accordance with the most recent edition of the "American Standard for - Nursery Stock." Spaded trees shall be accepted if approved by the VBDA. 20. Shade trees (3 '/z" to 4" caliper, 14' to 16' in height) shall be placed 2'-0" off the street right-of-way in a straight line along all roadways which properties abut or adjoin. One tree shall be provided for every 35' of property line that adjoins or abuts the roadway. If applicable, existing street trees on adjoining properties shall be located and shown on all landscape planting plans. The spacing of all new required street trees shall tie into existing trees maintaining a maximum spacing of 35' on center. The variety of shade trees shall be as approved by the VBDA. See Streetscape plan which shall be provided upon request by the VBDA. 21. Shade trees and/or flowering trees shall be provided in front of the buildings as approved by the VBDA. 22. The developer of each site that is adjacent to the lake shall provide typical lake edge landscaping as defined in Exhibit E. 23. The developer of each site that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood shall provide screening as defined in Exhibit K and as approved by the VBDA. 24. In addition to the above requirements, all landscaping shall comply with the City of Virginia Beach landscape requirements. If any discrepancy exists between the Design Criteria requirements and the City of Virginia Beach Landscape Ordinance, the more stringent requirements shall govern. 11. Page 27, item 3.03 A4,delete "cool white mercury vapor lamps" and replace with "metal halide." 12. Page 27, item 3.03 A 6, delete"required" and replace with"encouraged." • 13. Page 36, Exhibit E, delete the words: "Stone Edge as approved by the VBDA." • Prepared by CMSS Architects,P.C. Page 4 of 12 F:193-JOBS193000193000.46ldddendum(2)6-17-98.doc • 14. Page 37, Exhibit F, delete "concrete at road crossing" and replace with, "Stamped concrete to match existing at road crossing." 15. Page 37, Exhibit F, delete the graphic section and replace with the following, "NOTE: For jogging trail layout, see the Jogging Trail Master Plan(Exhibit F1). A full size plan shall be provided upon request from the VBDA." 16. Page 38, Exhibit G, in the diagram of the parking lot adjacent to the road right-of-way, delete the note: "24" — 30" in height evergreen planting" and replace with"Evergreen planting 30" minimum height." And in the diagram of the parking lot adjacent to lake edge, delete "landscape buffer 4' to 5' in height" and replace with, "Landscape buffer planting 4'—5' in height, 3'on center." 17. Page 40, delete Exhibit I and replace with Exhibit I at the end of this addendum. 18. Page 42, Exhibit K, in the note that begins "Evergreen shrubs on top of the berm",delete"2'—3"'and replace with"2 1/2 '—3"' 19. Page 43, Exhibit L, delete"Continuous 24" height evergreen hedge" and replace with "continuous evergreen hedge 30" height spaced 3'on center at installation". • 20. Page 45,Part B,Building Identification:,delete parts a.—d. and replace the with following: a. For each building or cluster of buildings, there may be one (two-sided) free standing site sign with a maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet of surface area per side. Maximum height of free standing sign shall be eight (8) feet measured from the adjoining finish grade or top. of berm. Height of berm and sign shall not exceed 10 feet. Information given on site sign shall be limited to company name, logo, and street address. Final design shall be as approved by the VBDA. Menu board type signs shall not be permitted. b. There may be tenant signs on the buildings, see Exhibits Q and Q1. Exhibit Q is for a single story multiple tenant building and the maximum height of letters shall be 12" and copy area shall not exceed 15 square feet. Exhibit Q 1 is for a single tenant for a single building (see the end of this addendum for Exhibit Q1). Building mounted signs shall comply with the following chart: Prepared by CMSS Architects,P.C. Page 5 of 12 F:193-JOBS193000193000.46 Addendum(2)6-17-98.doc Building Building Ground Maximum Maximum Height For Mounted Letter/Logo Height Height Sign Mounted Sign For Bldg. Sign Ground Mtd.Sign Up to 20' 1 @ 40 SF 1 @ 32+SF 2' Height 8'from finish grade or top of berm, • Max Each Side Combined height of sign and berm shall not exceed 10' in height 20'-39' 1 @ 75 SF 1 @ 32+SF 3' Height 8' from finish grade or top of berm, Max Each Side Combined height of sign and berm shall not exceed 10' in height 39' + 1 @ 105 SF 1 @ 32+SF 4' Height 8' from finish grade or top of berm, Max Each Side Combined height of sign and berm shall not exceed 10' in height • c. Individually fabricated, metal letters or non-worded corporate logos may be mounted to the building in the designated copy area. Plastic letters shall not be permitted. d. The size, location on the façade, color and finish of the letters or logo shall be compatible with the building architecture. e. All graphics shall be pin-mounted plate and may be backlit or lit with a ground mounted light. Care shall be taken to conceal all conduits, raceways and transformers and they shall not be visible under any circumstances. f. Building height shall be measured from finish floor elevation to top of parapet or gravel stop. g. Building mounted numbered addresses shall be permitted. The numbered address shall be located near the primary entrance and positioned to ensure maximum visibility. The letter height shall not exceed 15". There shall be only one numbered address for each building except in the R & D section of the park. Street names on the building are not permitted. Numbered addresses shall not be backlit. In multi-tenant buildings where storefront entrances are used, sign information shall be limited to company name,company logo,and suite number. See Exhibit Q for more information. h. For sites in Corporate Landing which have under 100 LF of R.O.W. frontage a variance will need to be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow for a ground mounted sign. Prepared by CMSS Architects,P.C. Page 6 of 12 F:%93-JOBSV93000\93000.46Uddendurn(2)6-17-98.doc • 21. Page 46, Article B, Building Identification, item"e" will now be item "c." 22. Page 50, 51, 53, 54: delete Exhibit 0, P, R,and S. 23. Page 57, item 5.03 A, Part B, delete in its entirety and replace with the.following: Glazing shall be reflective enough to prevent vision from the exterior to the inside during daylight hours. Reflective glazing shall have a shading coefficient of.20 to .30. 24. Page 58, delete item 5.06 in its entirety. 25. Page 60, item 6.02 B, delete the word "fence" from the third line of the paragraph and delete "and approval by the City of Virginia Beach. At that time an application fee will be required by the Applicant." 26. Page 60, item 6.03, delete "four", and replace with "three" and delete "Four(4) sets" and replace with "Three (3) sets" in the first and second sentences. 27. Page 61, item 6.03.1, delete the following: "Approved construction documents by the City of Virginia Beach with any City comments shall be submitted to the VBDA for approval at the construction document submittal stage." And replace with the following: "Final approved City of Virginia Beach site plan documents shall be submitted to the VBDA before construction begins." 28. Page 61, item 6.03.1 A-2,delete "scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" from the title. 29. Page 61, item 6.03.1 A-2,part a. shall read as follows: "Floor Plans: (1/8"= 1'-0"). 30. Page 62, item 6.03.1 A-2, part b. shall read as follows: "Elevations: (1/8" = 1'-0" or 1/16" = 1'-0") in color and a color sample board of all exterior building materials and finishes." 31. Page 62, 6.03.1 A-2, part e, add the following at the end of the sentence: "All equipment on the roof shall be shown on the building elevation with proposed, screening." 32. Page 62, item 6.03.1 B, delete the following: "Construction Document Review" and replace with the following: "CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR FINAL REVIEW." Prepared by CMSSArchiiecis.P.C. Page 7 of 12 F:193-JOBS193000193000.46Wddend„n,(2)6-17-98.doc 33. Page 62, item 6.03.1 B la, delete in its entirety and replace with the following: "Completed construction drawings indicating all exterior finishes, colors and proposed screening of roof top equipment. Actual size of equipment shall be indicated behind screen. The previously submitted colored elevations and the exterior building material sample board which were submitted for preliminary review shall be resubmitted again with the construction drawings. • 34. Page 62,delete item 6.03.1B lb, in its entirety. Item 6.03 1 B lc shall then be changed to read 6.03 1 B lb. 35. Page 62, item 6.03.01 B 2: f. delete, "Location of trash collection area" and replace with"Dumpster enclosure." j. delete"item C-12". And, add the following items: k. site utilities both above and below grade and any easements associated with them. 1. site lighting 36. Page 63, item 6.05 A,delete the first sentence in its entirety and replace with the following: "Committee shall be composed of the VBDA's Department of Economic Development and the VBDA's architectural, engineering, and landscape architectural consultants, which herein afterward shall be referred to as"the Staff." . 37. Page 63, item 6.05 A, in the second sentence delete"Industrial Parks Committee" and replace with "Staff." 38. Page 64, item 6.05 B, delete the entire sentence and replace with "The VBDA shall receive comments and recommendations from the Staff as to whether the plans submitted should be approved or rejected." . 39. Page 65, item 6.07 A, delete entire paragraph and replace with the following: "The Applicant is responsible for complying with all applicable requirements of public agencies in the development of site(s) within Corporate Landing and shall make separate submittals to City of Virginia Beach review agencies. The Applicant may make concurrent submittals to both the VBDA and the City." • 42. Page 65, item 6.07, add the following: C. The property owner is solely responsible for complying with all aspects of the Design Criteria, as well as all applicable codes and regulations. No variance from any aspect of the Design Criteria will be permitted unless approved in writing by the VBDA. If non-compliance to the Design Criteria is discovered during or after construction, it shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner to rectify all non-complying conditions at his or her expense to the satisfaction of the VBDA. Prepared by CMSSArchilecls,P.C. Page 8 of 12 F:191-JODS193000193000.461Addenduu,(2)6-17-98.doc EXHIBIT C MASTER LAND-USE PLAN Prepared by CUSS Architects,P.C. Page 9 of 12 F:193-JOBS193000193000.46 4ddcndum(2)6-17-98.doc • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦•♦•♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ `•:MXD +' AG- 1 LA . .• . . . . ♦• • ♦'♦ • ♦••. ♦ ♦ ♦ • i��.:` DO MEDIUDM I DENSITY OFFICE ` ' ` ' ' ` ' •••••••••••••••••••• lip.♦\ ,..♦♦.. jam_ RESEARCH Q DEVELOPMENT •••••••••••••'•♦•'•!� A���,,,, • �-�} R D ZONED I- 1 �•+•+♦+•+♦ • `1�.��.�.�••...... .� v��•i i�i'� ��� i�4 M DO • AG- 1 • MXD MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ► � a . . ♦ ZONED I- i • ►..�..� ����. ., ♦.. .\ o i�iii��i MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT •�j�jjs• ►-•,.. ��������' ��.�.�.�.�.�.j`.�Cfi . MGM MXD 2 ZONED B-2 .����������i . � ������• �o FOUNTAIN PARK • i�......0 ► ������� . 1 ,�.�����.����� PARK Aye ♦ • .•, 16 ilinsitnimirmal 0 1 AG- 1 t � ..� ► 1...#i :iiiii iiiii• ►� ► ...1 �.... *i•••••••••• R D •••••••••• � w 600 400' 200' 0 400' 800 1600 ►�. �. .. • • • • • • • • • • • • �. p•••••••f--•�•��••••••••••••r ._.•_•_ • • • • • • • ♦ • ♦.�.4 •••4:444 •• • •. �' ♦♦�.♦ • .4400 il.0f f D-H 1 • R$ De ♦...e' ....•F • • • • •II'1t1!! • PD- H2 ������... . *��.����� 4 %•• �%%%%%% 5 2 ...VAYAVA•ATA...., ������ M DO .�.�.�.��4 I••••••••••••• •, �� A.A.Z.AVAVA!AYA'i . AL AL•.►.ii��4 4•�•• �•�s:4 ,.....A.A.A•....A., SAZon,:1��1/:v01: ••• R D •••� ►A.A.A.A.Aq pAVA YAVA.AooYAYA•AuYAYA.A..n ,bp. • • £.A.AVAYAYAYA.A.A! ►.A.AYA.A.A.A!AYAVAVYA.A.A.i • • • • • ` i i ,IA.A.A.A.A.AVA.A.I /A.A.A.A.A.A.AYA.A.A.A.A.A.AT '••••••••••••••� 'A.A A� A.A.A.A AVAVAVAT •••••••••••••••� ►... MXD 2 T ..A..�A. MXD 2 Waal ;•••••••••••••••• IA.A A /A.A.A.A A.AVANZ �•••••••••••••••• £YA.AYAVAVAYA.A.A� A.ATAYA�A.A�AYAVAVAVAIA.A.AV e•••••••••••••••it .AYAVAYAYAYA.A.AY4 YAVA.AYA..A.AVA.AVAVAVAVATi •�• •�•�•�•�•�•�•� AG- 2 lA.A.A�A.AYA.A.AYA W.A.A.i ►.AVAYAVA.A.AYA.AI • • • • • • • • • yaw.W._._._._._._ "...., ...A.A._.A.AVAVA., ;•••••••••••••••..� GENERAL •V*W..A.I� �VAEI._. ma -� / AG-2 JJJ BOOTH BOULEVARD 1n MASTER PLAN LAND U5E/ ZONING • od C - � e = o w E M w Gt, z Owl EMI - COO E4.44 IN • a 2 0 x 4P44 W . C7 z L.7 L7 • • O Ci s C.� ate` 4 1 t y`. 5' WIDE ASPHALT •� PATH (TYP) • '- `, ```� 4, 5' WIDE CONCRETE t t \ PATH (TYP) iik 1 ----- , I I lip i \ 1 i,_ _ j_______L , 4„,. ,)-4,„ i 1 1 , i f v d / _ -, :77.2.,,,,,,,,--„7- : 1 / I . . GENERAL 80OTH ........------1 _` •BOULEVARD 0' 250'500' 1000' 2000' 3000' 1111111 immimillilMling.. (1 ..., 8 JOGGING TRAIL MASTER PLAN • • EXHIBIT I SCREENING FOR SITE UTILITIES AND LOADING AREAS • • Prepared by CAISS Architects,P.C. Page 11 of 12 F:193-JOBS193000193000.461Addendum(2)6-17-98.doc • . r I EVERGREEN TREES/ . • SHRUBS AS REQUIRED • Oh i I&IP 1 T 10' MIN. _ I , ‘,. ,.,,;, i. ... -v ‘••,-- „„,,,-,;_,..mmingliaa . •— WALL :, , _ :.,�__ _��: „_ , y fir'....... - EVERGREEN SHRUB MASSING 4' TO 5' IN HEIGHT . LOADING AT INSTALLATION ;:� 't ► i • • • . • , . TRANSFORMER ivyC'..•. 1 .M41 J• •, 1 1 .. i"•. ..•;:': • . :. •. . • 10' MIN. • '.... nor -:. Ap..111prqui, • : , . . .•. ' / • •,• ��� � 1�'/fir' . • � . - �r j jf�►- ; �,+ : TRANSFORMER EVERGREEN SHRUB • +� ' , • • �1p 410 41IV , 3" MULCH WITH . MASSING 3' TO 4' HEIGHT • v•%••. • . • ...--• • • • ,: • ' SOIL SEPARATOR AT INSTALLATION ' ` • • . • : • • • •• •. . . •.-' — EVERGREEN SHRUB MASS. 3' TO 4' HEIGHT AT INSTALLATION AS REQUIRED BY THE UTILITY CO. I1l SCREENING FOR SITE UTILITIES AND LOADING. AREAS j mi rl' GrPPPNI IA/AI I G API r?PriI JIkf`n t=n2 crPTAIN SITE ELEMENTS. SEE 3.01 ITEtvA r J EXHIBIT Q1 SINGLE TENANT SIGN ON BUILDING • Prepared by CMSSArchiiecis,P.C. Page 12 of 12 F:193JOBS19300019300O.4614ddenduw(2)6-17-98.doc (.. .Jr I f1KCP\ 211P\LL _ • NOT EXCEED 105 SQ.FT. INCLUDING LOGO 7.'' V 11/ . \ri f J -11\� 25% CLEAR MIN. v- L I 1 - - 50% COPY AREA MAX,--- - - --i--'7f 25% CLEAR MIN. 1I 1I 11 - _ I __ - __ 1 J - - - ,.---'--ZINIZiNI I - I I , ,�. ,�. ,; , . , . „ , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , .. . I \ . , , /-1 Y v Y �- , THE ABOVE DRAWINGS 15 TO SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE HOW A SINGLE TENANT NAME CAN BE PLACED ON THE BUILDING. THE TENANT SIGNAGE SYSTEMS SHALL ACCOMPANY THE SUBMITTAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS TO THE VBDA FOR APPROVAL. THIS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH AND EVERY BUILDING. SINGLE TENANT ON BUILDING Q SCALE: 1 /8 = 1 -0 City of Virgirii i B each 9p� • ' OF d`OF OUR Nxo°Ns VBgov.com DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4525 MAIN STREET (757)385-6464 SUITE 700 TTY:711 VIRGINIA BEACH,VA 23482 September 28, 2021 RE: Corporate Landing Business Park Design Criteria Update Dear Neighbor of Corporate Landing Business Park, The City of Virginia Beach Development Authority(the"VBDA") is requesting to update the Design Criteria that were established for the Corporate Landing Business Park in 1990. A public hearing before Virginia Beach City Council is scheduled for this item on October 19, 2021 at 6pm inside the Council Chamber at City Hall. As a neighbor of Corporate Landing Business Park, we want to make you aware of this initiative and provide you with the opportunity to ask questions and provide comment. Please see more information about this below and contact information for comments and questions. What are the Corporate Landing Business Park Design Criteria? Dating back to the 1990 legal establishment of Corporate Landing Business Park(the"Park"), additional development restrictions were placed on properties within the Park to ensure a unified, qualitative park environment was developed. The Design Criteria document provides guidance on site design, setbacks, building design, landscaping and signage. Why is the VBDA requesting to update the Design Criteria? The current Design Criteria are over 30 years old and a modification is needed to remain relevant for market opportunities. Some key changes to the Design Criteria are: • Reduced redundancy with the Zoning Ordinance and current code requirements; • Updated residential neighborhood setbacks, building setbacks and parking lot setbacks; • Consolidated amendments into one user-friendly and attractive document; • More permitted flexibility with new and innovative materials and construction methods; and • Increased guidance on light industrial and advanced manufacturing building types. The existing and updated design criteria as well as a detailed list of changes can be viewed at www.vesvirqiniabeach.com/vbda How does this affect my property? The modification request does not apply to your property, only to the neighboring VBDA-owned property and one property owned by FROB, LLC, see the map on the back of this page. This letter serves as a courtesy to keep you informed of what is occurring in your neighboring area. Corporate Landing Business Park Design Criteria Update September 28, 2021 Page 2 Corporate Landing Business Park Map Dam Neck Rood — --- 1 1, / FROB, LLC 1 a ___L , 4\- { • / �a.+ f ' yv--.it or I il �' { al , �c l M1j fC > ' 0O l G O•yip \ ; N. O 7k' Nc Legend �� 40 s a 1 �. .. Business Park Limits <_s ` VBDA Owned Property f Craft Lane i ,r Lake/Stormwater Pond '_ Wetlands \ Future Stormwater Pond rF" nP 7^ C4/Ver I c �� [n 0 tr -c` � eA� t (s / ` 4° 0,a0�e 'Lc ocy �oA Ni. re �E f� Source.Nearmap. 0 800 Feet If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Emily Archer by phone at (757) 385-2912 or by email at earcher(a�vbgov.com. Respectfully, .A..."--' (..4-4-4-.- Emily Archer, PLA Senior Planner/Urban Designer Department of Economic Development WILLCOX SAVAGE Lisa M.Murphy (757)628-5540 lmurphy@wilsay.com 87644.001 September 30, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Hoa N. Dao Current Planning Manager/Planning Evaluation Coordinator Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach,Virginia 23452 Street Closure Applications—JTR,LLC ("Applicant") 2020-PCCC-00315/00316 Conditional Rezoning& Conditional Use Permit Applications - MP Shore, LLC ("Applicant") 2020-PCCC-00122/00123—Bayside Dear Hoa: As a follow-up to our telephone conversation, I am writing to you on behalf of the Applicants in connection with the referenced applications to seek to have the public hearings on these applications deferred to the December 7th City Council Meeting in order to address issues raised at the Planning Commission Hearing and to discuss those issues with the community. We also want to share with the community, the environmental sustainability programs currently being negotiated with Dominion Virginia Power for implementation in connection with this project. Please do not hesitate to call or email me should you have any questions regarding this request. With kind regards, I am Very-truly yours Lisa M. Murphy cc: Mr. John H. Peterson III (via email) Mr. William A. Wilcox II (via email) Mr. Terry L. Browning(via email) Reply to Norfolk Office 440 MONTICELLO AVENUE SUITE 2200 NORFOLK, VA 23510 757.629.5500 FACSIMILE 757.628.5566 222 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE SUITE 1500 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462 757.628.5600 FACSIMILE 757.628.5659 WWW.WILLCOXANOSAVAGE.COM 1-1 67 1 1 94.1 "11111 R5R R5R . .c ,,wiEn ___ priirip RR R5 R - * milB4 El B21 B4 jt*IR?), Q% c3 A1°8 ❑ ❑ 6 PR i - \ Oa000 ore Dri ❑❑ ❑❑ � ��1� -•ve Sh - ���Ua� ore pry 82 -- -Shore prove Sh • —�Ve� Shoes=e •� hore Dr - / ' S -�i . R5 D / B2 ,_ R5D 82 PDHI ØIP0H1% $ 4 . . ististekshk bk\ PDli 1 �. . Cl�i tipper Bay_Dr ��. � PDH1 pp ottillr P1 �',y, i'� •� �'��4441" PDH 1',,�, O , �' •• t� `� A � sue.. � ! �,�to PD H 1 �, � � e aeli Pila ik l JTR, LLC N FM Site Portion of Ocean Tides Drive, South of Shore Drive W l: Property Polygons and north of Clipper Bay Drive, and a portion of s Zoning Clipper Bay Drive right-of-way south of Shore Drive Building and west of cean Tides Drive . _ —Feet 0 30 60 120 180 240 300 360 I rS$ d' + Y ,I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinance Approving Application of JTR, LLC for the Closure of 1) an Approximately 26,414 Sq. Ft. Portion of a Right-of-Way Known as Clipper Bay Drive and 2) an Approximately 12,252 Sq. Ft. Portion of a Right-of-Way known as Ocean Tides Drive MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 (APPLICANT IS REQUESTING DEFERRAL) • Background: The applicant is requesting deferral of this application to the December 7, 2021 City Council meeting to address issues raised at the Planning Commission public hearing. JTR, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company(the "Applicant"), requests the closure of an approximately 26,414 sq. ft. portion of Clipper Bay Drive and an approximately 12,252 sq. ft. portion of Ocean Tides Drive (collectively, the "Rights- of-Way"). The Rights-of-Way, which are partially improved and partially unimproved, would be incorporated into the adjacent parcels owned by the Applicant. The Applicant proposes to develop an apartment complex on the site. Any sale of an interest in a public street or place (a "public place") requires a recorded affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members elected to City Council ("super-majority vote"). Art. VII, § 9 Va. Const. and Va. Code §15.2-2100 (A). The proposed Ordinance would authorize the sale of a public place, and the super- majority vote requirement is noted at the end of the Ordinance. • Considerations: Although the Rights-of-Way are not used for vehicular traffic between Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive, it appears that pedestrians use the Rights-of-Way for access between Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. Additionally, there is storm drainage infrastructure in the portion of Ocean Tides Drive proposed for closure. The Viewers determined that there are alternate routes that provide safe access to and from the adjacent neighborhood and Shore Drive, and with the conditions set forth below, the proposed closures will not result in a public inconvenience. City staff received 9 letters of support and 349 letters of opposition of the proposed closure of the Rights-of-Way and/or the associated Conditional Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit. There was 1 speaker in support and 17 speakers in opposition at the Planning Commission public hearing. JTR, LLC Page 2 of 2 • Recommendation: On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-1, to recommend approval of the request to City Council with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The Applicant shall resubdivide the properties and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the Rights-of-Way into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said plat shall include the dedication of a 25' wide public drainage easement along the eastern half of the proposed closure area of Ocean Tides Drive, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works, and the City Attorney's Office, which easement shall include a reasonable right of ingress and egress. 3. The Applicant, or the Applicant's successors or assigns, shall verify that no private utilities exist within the Rights-of-Way proposed for the closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 4. Closure of the Rights-of-Way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved for recordation within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. • Attachments: Ordinances (2) Staff Report and Disclosure Statements Location Map Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Letters of Support (9 — Provided via Email) Letters of Opposition (349 — Provided via Email) Deferral Request Recommended Action: Staff recommends Approval. Planning Commission recommends Approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department 6 .( City Manager: 1 ORDINANCE APPROVING APPLICATION OF 2 JTR, LLC FOR THE CLOSURE OF AN 3 APPROXIMATELY 26,414 SQ. FT. PORTION 4 OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS CLIPPER 5 BAY DRIVE 6 7 WHEREAS, JTR, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (the "Applicant"), 8 applied to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter 9 described portion of right-of-way discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 10 11 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said right-of-way be 12 discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or 13 before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this Ordinance. 14 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia 16 Beach, Virginia: 17 18 SECTION I 19 20 That the hereinafter described portion of right-of-way (the "Right-of-Way") be 21 discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on or before 22 one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: 23 24 ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being 25 in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as 26 "PARCEL C-1 7,400 SQ.FT. 0.170 ACRES", "PARCEL C-4 11,161 27 SQ.FT. 0.256 ACRES", "PARCEL C-2 5,894 SQ.FT. 0.135 28 ACRES" and "PARCEL C-3 1 ,959 SQ.FT. 0.045 ACRES", as 29 shown on that certain street closure exhibit entitled: "STREET 30 CLOSURE EXHIBIT OF + 26,414 SQUARE FEET PORTION OF 31 CLIPPER BAY DRIVE (FORMERLY RICHMOND CRESCENT) 32 (M.B. 5, P. 197)", Scale: 1" = 40', dated November 6, 2020, and 33 revised August 23, 2021, prepared by Timmons Group, a copy of 34 which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 35 36 SECTION II 37 38 The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City 39 Council's adoption of this ordinance: 40 41 1 . The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding 42 ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be 43 determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets 44 Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are 45 available in the Planning Department. 46 47 NO GPIN ASSIGNED — PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 48 (Adjacent GPINs: 1489-28-9631, 1489-28-6485, 49 1489-28-9631 and 1489-28-9308) 50 2. The Applicant shall resubdivide the properties and vacate internal lot lines 51 to incorporate the Rights-of-Way into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat must 52 be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 53 54 3. The Applicant, or the Applicant's successors or assigns, shall verify that 55 no private utilities exist within the Rights-of-Way proposed for closure. If private utilities 56 do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 57 58 4. Closure of the Rights-of-Way shall be contingent upon compliance with 59 the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the 60 conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved for 61 recordation within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this 62 approval shall be considered null and void. 63 64 SECTION III 65 66 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before October 18, 2022, 67 this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Council. 68 69 2. If all conditions are met on or before October 18, 2022, the date of final 70 closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 71 72 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the underlying 73 fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever documents are 74 requested, if any, to convey such interest, provided said documents are approved by 75 the City Attorney's Office. 76 77 SECTION IV 78 79 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit 80 Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY OF 81 VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and JTR, LLC as "Grantee". 82 83 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day 84 of , 20 THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL ELECTED MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 2 '� �GGw Planning De artme t City Attorney CA15198 \\vbgov.com\dfs 1\applications\citylaw\cycom32\wpdocs\d022\p044\00735035.doc R-1 October 7, 2021 Y.190514507&Snore Or Marlin Bay1DWG14501V-905V-STREET-CLOSURE-CLPR-CITY.O vg 1 Plotted an&23/2021 2 17 PM I by Wayne Lams INDICATES CLIPPER BAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED AREA TO 1489-28-9631 - INDICATES CLIPPER BAY - - DRIVE TO BE CLOSED SHORE DRIVE E - AREA TO 1489-28-6485 U.S. ROUTE 60 INDICATES CLIPPER BAY VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED VDOT PROJ.0060-075-000,2175-09 AREA TO 1489-28-9631 N82°42'27"E N82°42'27"E 87.83' N82°42'27"E INDICATES CLIPPER BAY \—49.23' -- 38.60' / DRIVE TO BE CLOSED r-+/-146'TO - -_ — . �V AREA TO 1489-28-9308 MARLIN BAY o�\--- n DRIVE _ rI — r I — X— F 6'CLF t A-0 I JTR,/LLC t_ V 73 K1T1 \ D.B.4239,P. 1529 F _ -G��'3 \ "PARCEL A" _< \ \ M.B.56,P.33 • 73 \ ZONED B2 V-ZLI O— \ GPIN 1489-28-9631-0000 0 =W 01 o OLF \ . \ I F° .......----/*------ 9= z<'�\ 0 m"'m� 7' ., Z� 0ir° 9mcn� a` PARCELC-1 vQoi � a •N_ -o � 7,400 SQ.FT. m Z\-V _ 'ZZ`� \ 0.170 ACRES d 0 O\ \- - - \ \-- - \ 1 Q. N/F � Z6 C2, q SHORE DRIVE AREA -} _ -0 1p 0\ PROPERTIES,LLC —`PN `.3 \ INST.20080818000976300 — 5 \ M.B.5,P. 197 ti ->L \ J ZONED PDH1 LLw GPIN 1489-28 6485 0000i wo Qce r PARCEL C 4 i .�\ 2 a in o '7 �iiO sC\\ 11,161 SQ.FT. __ PO`�i,�A <.c k� c� Qs 0.256 ACRES \� __ _ 41 .Q �? ti se,\ _ — —�Fo j 2 ri LINE TABLE + \ - ___ 7 44 \ \� ke __— -- LINE BEARING LENGTH , 'S ` 2� L3 S07 29'S4 E 28.49' +/ 6 SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES / &CURVE TABLE �P1,TH Op k SCALE 1"=40' O�� � r ► �C 1 I �0 40' 80' . 8 ERIC S. PATTERSON a REVISED: Lic. No. 2412 STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT OF±26,414 SQUARE FEET PORTION OF 05/10/2021 O8 . S 2•1 CLIPPER BAY DRIVE 08/11/2021 <'4'VD SUR4-- (FORMERLY RICHMOND CRESCENT) 08/23/2021 (M.B. 5,P. 197) VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE Date:NOV. 6,2020 Scale:1"=40' VIRGINIA BEACH OFFICE YOUR VISION ACHTEVED THROUGH OURS. 2901 South Lynnllaven ROOO,SuRe 200 I Virginia Read%VA 23452 Sheet 1 of 3 J.N.:45078 TEL 757.213.6679 FAX 757.340.1415 www.timmmns.rnm Drawn by:WAL Checked by:THE TIMMONS GROUP . . �.'. 1,V90544507B-5nore LV Marlin Nay VDVVGV45073-905V.STREET-CLOSURE-CLPR.CITY.dOy I Plotted un&232021 2 17 PM I by Wayne Lewis N/F JTR,LLC D.B.4239,P. 1529 "PARCEL B" M.B.56,P.33 tb ZONED B2 Occ GPIN 1489-28-9631-0000 ti PARCEL C-2 A. 14.,44 5,894 SQ.FT. Z 45.b44. 0.135 ACRES LI L 44/ `y C \SS 7 Y •y\: . IQ C,r4 'k. 4/c6,ONY -" .,6CLP c`C S• `0• ��Q. CEO° CRF�RTVErUN vp�.y PARCEL C-3 �• N/MPRo C6 MPROVED)C5. V ti 4 1,959 SQ.FT. ti VE°) V4 Vft /ti 0.045 ACRES q,` �b Q 4ry '3ti� s�'O ✓ aQ" 4`P co ^�ti • +F,p STREET ^'o �>, \cA�ti, o���,��cs SIGN „�lO�.6ig.,y� -44!/ / N/F \ 9 ti Q \ L SHORE DRIVE AREA 9�89 ?S�, Q`Jki PROPERTIES,LLC N.'o o Q It INST.20190912000773330 \�D JM.B. 113,P. 14 >PQ• ZONED PDH1 ��,:'�' / GPIN 1489-28-9308-0000 44/Q '`N/FN/F SHORE DRIVE AREA SUBDIVISION OF 'S Py�,11`/ PROPERTIES,LLCINST.20080818000976300 M8 R137,P49 Q �41?Q M.B.5,P. 197 / ZONED PDH1 �Cjoe- 0(GPIN 1489-28-6485-0000 O INDICATES CLIPPER BAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED LINE TABLE AREA TO 1489-28-9631 LINE BEARING LENGTH _ -_= INDICATES CLIPPER BAY - - - DRIVE TO BE CLOSED L 1 S37'52'12"W 27.90' AREA TO 1489-28-6485 L2 N16"1225"E 25.00' INDICATES CLIPPER BAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED AREA TO 1489-28-9631 �PyTH OP ` • INDICATES NDRIVE TO BE C�OSEDER Y SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES p�� fi -- - AREA TO 1489-28-9308 &CURVE TABLE r� SCALE 1"=40' U ERIC S. PA� Lk. No. 2412 STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT REVISED: 40' 80' 08-0/-L/ OF±26,414 SQUARE FEET PORTION OF 05/10/2021 CLIPPER BAY DRIVE 08/11/2021 (FORMERLY RICHMOND CRESCENT) 08/23/2021 (M.B.5,P. 197) VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE Date:NOV. 6,2020 Scale:1"=40' VIRQNIA BEACH OFFICE YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH ORS. 2901 South Lymheven Road,Suite 200 I Virginal Beach,VA 23452 Sheet 2 of 3 J.N.:45078 TEL 757.213.6679 FAX 757.340.1415 www.timmons.com Drawn by:WAL Checked by:THF TIMMONS GROUP .•'':�• r t90514507BSnne Ur Mann BavVAGV15076•905VSTREET[AOSURE•CLPR•CITY.&to l Plotted on 8232021 2.17 PM I by Wayne Lewnr CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD Cl 30.00' 31.32' 17.26' 59°49'18' S15"0O27"W 29.92' C2 265.58' 267.54' 146.36' 57043 03" S43 45'44 E 256.37' C3 919.72' 219.13' 110.09' 13'39'04" S79 2647"E 218.61' C4 950.09' 18.87' 9.43' 01°08'16" 518 2423"W 18.87' C5 112.26' 11.18' 5.59' 05°42'17" 557°12'53"W 11.17' C6 944.72' 108.48' 54.30' 06 34 45" N82°0853"W 108.42' C7 969.72' 93.02' 46.55' 05°29'46" N75'22'0814/ 92.98' C8 315.58' 314.48' 171.69' 57°05'46" N44°0422"W 301.63' C9 50.00' 48.47' 26.33' 55°3235" N43°1747"W 46.59' C10 944.72' 211.33' 106.11' 12 4900" N79°0145"W 210.89' C11 290.58' 12.17' 6.08' 02 2356" N71 25'17"W 12.16' C12 265.58' 24.18' 12.08' 05°13 00" S70°0045 E 24.17' C13 930.09' 101.91' 51.14' 12°0441" N75°571814/ 73.16' C14 944.72' 83.52' 41.79' 05°0355" S76°1933"E 83.49' C15 290.58' 323.82' 181.05' 63°51'03" 840 4144E 307.33' C16 944.72'. 19.33' 9.66' 01°1020" S73°1225"E 19.33' C17 969.72' 19.84' 9.92' 01°1020" N73°1225"W 19.84' C18 290.58' 311.66' 172.71' 6127'46" N39°2946"W 296.93' C19 265.58' 243.36' 130.97' 52°30'04" S41°09'14 E 234.93' SURVEY NOTES 1. THE MERIDIAN SOURCE OF THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE VIRGINIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, SOUTH ZONE,NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983/1993 HARN(US SURVEY FEET).CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH STATIONS USED:PS 507, 134-0073 AND 4737 1744. 2. THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR STREET CLOSURE PURPOSES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBDIVISION OF LAND. 3. THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE,BUT IS NOT INTENDED TO DEPICT ALL EASEMENTS AND/OR PROPERTY MATTERS. 4. TOTAL AREA OF STREET CLOSURE SHOWN BY THIS EXHIBIT IS 26,414 SQUARE FEET TO BE CONVEYED AS FOLLOWS: S,TH OF 4F,A JTR,LLC: 13,294 S.F. P. SHORE DRIVE PROPERTIES,LLC: 13,120 S.F. o} v ERIC S. PATTERSON a STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT REVISED: Lic. No. 2412 OF±26,414 SQUARE FEET PORTION OF 05/10/2021 oB-zS-z r CLIPPER BAY DRIVE 08/11/2021 SUR`E (FORMERLY RICHMOND CRESCENT) 08/23/2021 (M.B. 5,P. 197) VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE Date:NOV. 6,2020 Scale:AS NOTED VIRGINIA BEACH OFFICE 'VCUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. 2901 South Lynnharen Road,Suite 200 I W nia Beatles,VA 23452 Sheet 3 of 3 J.N.:45078 TEL 757.213.6679 FAX 757.340.1415 www.bmmons.com Drawn by:WAL Checked by:THF TIMMONS GROUP .•''• • 1 ORDINANCE APPROVING APPLICATION OF 2 JTR, LLC FOR THE CLOSURE OF AN 3 APPROXIMATELY 12,252 SQ. FT. PORTION 4 OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS OCEAN 5 TIDES DRIVE 6 7 WHEREAS, JTR, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (the "Applicant"), 8 applied to the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter 9 described portion of right-of-way discontinued, closed, and vacated; and 10 11 WHEREAS, it is the judgment of the Council that said right-of-way be 12 discontinued, closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions having been met on or 13 before one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this Ordinance. 14 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Virginia 16 Beach, Virginia: 17 18 SECTION I 19 20 That the hereinafter described portion of right-of-way (the "Right-of-Way") be 21 discontinued, closed and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on or before 22 one (1) year from City Council's adoption of this ordinance: 23 24 ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being 25 in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as 26 "PARCEL 0-1 TO JTR, LLC TOTAL AREA =6,638 SQ.FT. 0.152 27 ACRES" and "PARCEL 0-2 TO BAYLINER BUILDING, LLC 28 TOTAL AREA = 5,614 SQ.FT. 0.129 ACRES", as shown on that 29 certain street closure exhibit entitled: "STREET CLOSURE 30 EXHIBIT OF + 12,252 SQUARE FEET PORTION OF OCEAN 31 TIDES DRIVE (FORMERLY ALLEGHANY AVENUE) (M.B. 5, P. 32 197) (d.b. 2708, p. 725)", dated November 6, 2020, and revised 33 August 23, 2021, prepared by Timmons Group, a copy of which is 34 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 35 36 SECTION II 37 38 The following conditions must be met on or before one (1) year from City 39 Council's adoption of this ordinance: 40 41 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding 42 ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be 43 determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets 44 Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are 45 available in the Planning Department. 46 47 NO GPIN ASSIGNED — PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 48 (Adjacent GPINs: 1489-28-9631 and 1489-38-2674) 49 2. The Applicant shall resubdivide the properties and vacate internal lot lines 50 to incorporate the Rights-of-Way into the adjoining parcels. The resubdivision plat must 51 be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said 52 plat shall include the dedication of a 25' wide public drainage easement along the 53 eastern half of the proposed closure area of Ocean Tides Drive, subject to the approval 54 of the Department of Public Works, and the City Attorney's Office, which easement shall 55 include a reasonable right of ingress and egress. 56 57 3. The Applicant, or the Applicant's successors or assigns, shall verify that 58 no private utilities exist within the Rights-of-Way proposed for closure. If private utilities 59 do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 60 61 4. Closure of the Rights-of-Way shall be contingent upon compliance with 62 the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the 63 conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved for 64 recordation within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this 65 approval shall be considered null and void. 66 67 SECTION III 68 69 1. If the preceding conditions are not fulfilled on or before October 18, 2022, 70 this Ordinance will be deemed null and void without further action by the City Council. 71 72 2. If all conditions are met on or before October 18, 2022, the date of final 73 closure is the date the street closure ordinance is recorded by the City Attorney. 74 75 3. In the event the City of Virginia Beach has any interest in the underlying 76 fee, the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute whatever documents are 77 requested, if any, to convey such interest, provided said documents are approved by 78 the City Attorney's Office. 79 SECTION IV 80 81 A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed in the Clerk's Office of the 82 Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the CITY 83 OF VIRGINIA BEACH as "Grantor" and JTR, LLC as "Grantee". 84 85 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day 86 of , 20 . THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL ELECTED MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENC : o/ 4.r�4.w Plannin Department City Attorney CA15199 \\vbgov.com\dfs 1\applications\citylaw\cycom32\wpdocs\d022\p044\00735035.doc R-1 October 7, 2021 Y 005U5078Shore Dr Maio BarIDWG44507B-505V.STREET-CLUSURE-OCEAN-CITY swg I PIQUea on d23/_0:1 2 2D PM I by Waffle laws DRIVE SEE DETAIL E p SHEET 2 Ng2°27'06° SHOR ROUTE 6 GHT-OF-WAY L3 VARIApOT PROS 0060 07 N42'2 5E 9 L\ L 1ea /0N V 0 11111111111 PROPOSED 25'PUBUC ti I=, DRAINAGE EASEMENT 1 Wr_'-! MEM 5,438 SQ.FT. 0.125 ACRES INDICATES OCEAN TIDES I >d M■ DRIVE TO BE CLOSED 1 C6'n in AREA TO 1489-28-9631 00 (�� INDICATES OCEAN TIDES II N/F BAYLINER BUILDING,LLC DRIVE TO BE CLOSED o w N INST.20080923001119430 AREA TO 1489-38-2674 U z o U "PARCEL A-I" W M.B.203,P.6 mom INDICATES PROPOSED I� f¢ p II() I ZONED 62 �MEM 25'PUBLIC o GPIN f489 38 2674-0000 !III DRAINAGE EASEMENT "I Uj� 1i 11 o WQ 1. i w MN 5'RAN DEDICATION W -1 > ��_�/MITI 0 JTR,LLC (�a w■Md D.B.2708,P. 725 �Jler D.B.4239,P. 1529 �' +� �u "PARCEL B" fQ in PARCEL O-2 TO cWil M.B.56,P.33 Z:� I BAYUNER BUILDING,LLC ZONED 82 Q_� III TOTAL AREA=5,614 SQ.FT. GPlN 1489 28-9631-0000 V-o: � 0.129 ACRES PARCEL 0-1 TO JTR,LLC Q.O IIM ") TOTAL AREA=6,638 SQ.FT. ma U 0.152 ACRES N IRK 11 U 1 sou 5' LINE TABLE �U��F ;•,°a ' nog, 6W LINE BEARING LENGTH "1.L4 — L1 N82°4277E 11.50' 20'V 20' I t-5'RM/DEDICATION 25' ` M.B. 113,P 14 L2 N86°16'52E 37.12' 0 11 O L3 N82 2706E 35.50' Q a I Z • m N/F LI . ..Z SUBDIVISION OF L4 SB0°3 J 09"W 26.85' O a ci ' a'o T'w n Z PARCEL'B' 4 U (1.,`-'Al")vT M.B. 137,P.49 L5 S07°1733 E 4.91' 4 I J _ rnz J C.T, (,6% o m - 6'CLF J1✓ '- c �o CS R=919.72' CLIPPER CLIPPER BAY BAY DRIVE E IMPRo (FORMERLY RI, , ND CRESCENT) (A4•B.5, P.197) (UNIMPROVED) (50'RIGHTORFWAY)� VED) (50 RIGHT-OF-WAY) CLF CHAIN LINK FENCE TH OF SCALE 1"=40' RAN RIGHT-OF-WAY �F,Q`1' Df WF WOODEN FENCE �'4 1 I ,/ 0 40' 80' SEE SHEET 2 FOR NOTES &CURVE TABLE U RIC S. PATfERSON STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT REVISED: Lic. No. 2412 OF 112,252 SQUARE FEET PORTION OF 05/10/2021 08—Z3—z-1 OCEAN TIDES DRIVE 08/11/2021 C SUR`& (FORMERLY ALLEGHANY AVENUE) 08/23/2021 (M.B. 5,P. 197)(D.B.2708,P. 725) VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE Date:NOV. 6, 2020 Scale:1"=40' VIRGINIA BEACH OFFICE YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. 2901 South Lynflhasen Road,Sage 200 I VIr9nia Bead,,VA 23452 Sheet 1 of 2 J.N.:45078 TEL 757.213.6679 FAX 757.340.1415 www.Ummons.CDm Drawn by:WAL Checked by:THE TIMMONS GROUP .•• . v-...1905145078-Shore Dr Marlin Ba'rIOWG445079-905V-STREET-CLOSURE-OCEAN-CITY owy j Plotted MI 2123/2021 22 20 PM I be Wayne Lew DRNVE N82'2106"E SHORE UTE 60 OFWAV L3 WID H pUBL75- H?75-09 L2 29 27'// VARIAB� ROJ.0p60-0 r- 18.79'i� i Gr rI-PARCEL 0-2 TO OT p Li cn N■■■ / BAYLINER BUILDING,LLC VD 2 27"E 18 33' ■■I�■■■i TOTAL AREA=5,614 SQ.FT. N82° \ 0 ■■Iu■■■■ l 0.129 ACRES C7 ■■1!■■■■ o m 11111111111111111 I 0\ m a ..> 1■■■■I PARCEL 0-1 TO JTR,LLC m‘ c m Z v ::■ 1 TOTAL AREA=6,638 SQ.FT. a m -1-78 a■■ GPIN 1489-38-2674-0000 0.152 ACRES ' D 0 g.■■ -H` GPIN 1489-28-9631-0000 c0' O m m my NMC)1U PROPOSED 25'PUBLIC 00 m ■■■■ DRAINAGE EASEMENT o fo i 0 ■■!■■■‘ 5,438 SQ.FT. 0.125 ACRES ` . k,. .1111.NaI m SEE SHEET 1 FOR ABBREVIATIONS, HATCH LEGEND&LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD Cl 30.00' 45.59' 28.50' 87°0354" S38°5509VV 41.33' C2 528.42' 105.18' 52.77' 11 24'17" SO1 73520"W 105.01' C3 975.09' 82.66' 41.35' 04°5125" 509°13'11"W 82.63' C4 950.09' 92.95' 46.51' 05°3620" S15°02'05"W 92.91' C5 919.72' 63.34' 31.68' 03°5645" N84°1757"W 63.32' C6 50.00' 71.71' 43.60' 82°1026" N56°35'12 E 65.72' C7 930.09' 141.36' 70.82' 08°4230" N11°0844 E 141.23' C8 483.42' 101.91' 51.14' 12°0441" NOD°45'08 E 101.72' C9 30.00' 25.63' 13.66' 48°5725" N29°45''55"W 24.86' C10 503.42' 123.75' 62.19' 14°0502" SOO°15'02"E 123.43' C11 950.09' 183.17' 91.87' 11°02'47" S12.1852"W 182.89' C12 950.09' 90.22' 45.14' 05"2627" N09 3042"E 90.19' C13 528.42' 133.66' 67.19' 14 2932" NOO 27'17"W 133.30' SURVEY NOTES 1. THE MERIDIAN SOURCE OF THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE VIRGINIA ���,A,TH OF G f STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM,SOUTH ZONE,NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983/1993 HARN(US SURVEY FEET).CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH �'���� STATIONS USED:PS 507, 134-0073 AND 4737 1744. U ERIC S. PATTERSON 2. THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR STREET CLOSURE PURPOSES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBDIVISION OF LAND. Lic. No. 2412 3. THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT '9-2.3- z( ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE,BUT IS NOT INTENDED TO DEPICT ALL cj EASEMENTS AND/OR PROPERTY MATTERS. STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT REVISED: SCALE 1"=20' OF±12,252 SQUARE FEET PORTION OF 05/10/2021 OCEAN TIDES DRIVE 08/11/2021 0 20' 40' (FORMERLY ALLEGHANY AVENUE) 08/23/2021 (M.B. 5,P. 197)(D.B. 2708,P. 725) VIRGINIA BEACH VIRGINIA THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE Date:NOV. 6,2020 Sca/e:1"=20' VIRGINIA BEACH OFFICE 'TOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH m0.S- 2901 South Lynnhaven Road,Suite 200 I Virginia Beach,VA 23452 Sheet 2 of 2 J.N.:45078 TEL 757.213.6679 FAX 757.340,1415 www.tlmmons.com Drawn by:WAL Checked by:THF TIMMONS GROUP .••'• • Applicant for Items 6&7 JTR,LLC Agenda Property Owners for Items 6&7 JTR,LLC;Bayliner Building,LLC;Shore Drive Area Items Properties,LLC Applicant for Items 8&9 MP Shore,LLC Property Owners for Items 8&9 JTR, LLC; Bayliner Building,LLC;Shore Drive Area 6/ 7, `ty Properties,LLC;City of Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Planning Commission Public Hearing September 8,2021 (Deferred from July 14, 8 9 2021&June 9,2021) City Council Election District Bayside Requests #6-Street Closure(Portion of Clipper Bay Drive) #7-Street Closure(Portion of Ocean Tides Drive) #8-Conditional Rezoning(PD-H1 Planned Development&B-2 Community Business to \` Conditional B-4 Mixed Use(SD)) #9-Conditional Use Permit(Multi-Family Dwellings) Staff Recommendation - Approval • Ale Staff Planner P".4Z �,rr4 Hoa N. Dao O''a r� Location Portions of Ocean Tides Drive&Clipper Bay Drive; 4 3829&3785 Shore Drive;adjacent parcels between - Marlin Bay Drive&3829 Shore Drive 4 GPINs 1489286485, 1489288247, 1489289308, 1489289631, 1489382674 Site Size 6.20 acres AICUZ Less than 65 dB DNL Watershed Chesapeake Bay Existing Land Use and Zoning District •, j ' s ,ks • '4aa • Retail,boat storage/B-2 Community Business, PD « H1 Planned Unit Development v +b ,,•w �^. °e Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts ! ait..+ i . North � �r �,. -4 Shore Drive � •+# Multi-family dwellings /A-18 Apartment,B-4 Mixed �. Use . , �.�.� South - r• L i� 3. 4• ,* r' • Marlin Bay Drive,Clipper Bay Drive,Ocean Tides t, .- ';` • :" • Drive r�� :. Multi-family dwellings/PD-H1 Planned Unit ' • R`. ` Development os -" Ma�� a East y. Mystic Cove Drive Retail/B-2 Community Business West Marlin Bay Pleasure House Point Natural Area/P-1 Preservation JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 1 Background & Summary of Proposal • These requests were deferred by the Planning Commission on June 9, 2021 and again on July 14, 2021 per the applicant's request in order to revise the Traffic Impact Study(TIS). This report has been updated since the original publication for the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing to address the components of the updated TIS. • The request is threefold and includes Street Closures,a rezoning and a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings in the Shore Drive Overlay District. Specifically,the applicant seeks a Street Closure of approximately 26,400 square feet of Clipper Bay Drive and approximately 12,500 square feet of Ocean Tides Drive; a Conditional Rezoning request from PD-H1 Planned Unit Development and B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District;and a Conditional Use Permit request to construct an apartment building complex with up to a maximum of 197 multi-family dwelling units,at a density of 31.77 units per acre. • Clipper Bay Drive and Ocean Tides Drive are partially improved with curb and gutter on a portion of Ocean Tides Drive and gutter on Clipper Bay Drive. • The proposed multi-family building varies in height of three to four stories.The proffered elevations depict a 4 1/2- story parking garage wrapped with apartment units and a three-story western wing.The proffered elevations depict the apartment building with architectural roof shingles, premium vinyl siding, brick veneer,vinyl column and aluminum railings, board and batten and shake siding accents,and vinyl windows. • The area available for commercial uses will be reduced from 3.20 acres to just over one acre. This area is located on the eastern portion of the site and will continue to be occupied by the existing boat sales dealership and a possible eating and drinking establishment,as depicted on the submitted renderings.The ultimate uses are subject to market demand and as permitted by-right in the Zoning Ordinance. • The proposed development requires a minimum of 390 parking spaces,358 spaces for the 197 multi-family dwelling units and 32 spaces for the 12,000 square foot commercial building. The concept plan depicts 346 spaces within the parking garage structure and 45 surface parking spaces,thereby exceeding the parking requirement by one space. • The proffered concept plan depicts a 10-foot wide multi-use trail on the subject property along Shore Drive, pedestrian pathways throughout the development, and a striped crosswalk to access the Pleasure House Point Natural Area southwest of the development. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7, 8, 9 Page 2 Zoning History # Request ,--7 ` ' `NJ�c S - ` J�� aa 1 CRZ(B-2 to Conditional B-4)Approved 11/15/2016 J� \ �. :t � p c �drl �� CUP(Multi Family Dwellings(SD))Approved 11/15/2016 �t�`,�'4 4 �, MOD(Boat Sales&Small Engine Repair)Approved 1, + + ,,f rim 0 .b l 07/02/2002 C,Oil3Ct3� P' ' f. "'` CUP(Boat Sales&Small Engine Repair)Approved g*00:14" 14 ., 05/09/2000 o --- i:eze, 7-✓- ,. CUP(Automobile Service Station)Approved 01/28/1985 %'� tf ///• i��A �I ^.�j S � 1 c . 2 REZ(PD H1 to P 1)Approved 11/27/2012 °'���`- 3 MOD(Modification of Proffers)Approved 01/12/2010 4. MOD(Modification of Conditions)Approved 01/22/2008 2 4ra ,a C. CRZ(B-2 to Conditional B-4)Approved 10/25/2005 `0/ir .. . ,,.� CUP(Multi-Family Dwellings(SD))Approved 10/25/2005 " 4 MOD(Modification of Conditions)Approved 09/22/2009 REZ(R-8 to B-2)Approved 06/08/1987 \ / 5 CRZ(B-2 to Conditional B-4)Approved 07/01/2003 CUP(Multi-Family Dwellings(SD))Approved 07/01/2003 6 CRZ(B-2&P-1 to A-18)Approved 03/11/1998 7 CRZ(To PD-H1)Approved 08/10/1970 Application Types CUP—Conditional Use Permit MOD—Modification of Conditions or Proffers FVR—Floodplain Variance LUP—Land Use Plan REZ—Rezoning NON—Nonconforming Use ALT—Alternative Compliance STR—Short Term Rental CRZ—Conditional Rezoning STC—Street Closure SVR—Subdivision Variance Evaluation & Recommendation The applicants' requests for the closure of the rights-of-way,the Conditional Rezoning,and the Conditional Use Permit to redevelop the 6.20-acre site in Staffs opinion are acceptable. As required by City Code, a Viewers' Meeting was held on December 2, 2020,that included City Staff from the Departments of Public Works, Public Utilities, Planning&Community Development, and the Office of the City Attorney, to consider closure of portion of Clipper Bay Drive and Ocean Tides Drive.The Viewers noted that the residents of Ocean Park do use this portion of Ocean Tides Drive or Clipper Bay Drive that are proposed for closure, and that there are existing paved alternative routes that provide access to and from the neighborhood and the City park from Shore Drive that include a safe and signalized intersection.Therefore,the Viewers determined that the proposed closure will not result in any public inconvenience and closure of these portions of the rights-of-way are deemed acceptable. While the proposed density at 31.77 units per acre is higher compared to developments in the immediate surrounding area, in Staffs view the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's 2002 Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines recommendation of low to medium density residential development within this"Mixed Zone" of the Shore Drive Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines also encourage the revitalization and reuse of existing commercial properties in the Corridor with uses that avoid over-commercialization and are mindful of land use compatibility issues.The redevelopment of the storage yard with multi-family dwelling units provides a more desirable as well as compatible transition of uses from Shore Drive to the residential dwellings within the neighborhood than the existing use. This policy is also specifically addressed through this proposal with the reduction in the amount of commercial acreage as well as the elimination of an undesirable use along the heavily traveled Shore Drive corridor.The redevelopment will remove the aging bulk storage yard, developed in the 1980s prior to the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit,that is not well-screened or well-organized.Today,the storage yard and its contents can be easily seen from the surrounding rights-of-way and serves as an unattractive landmark at an entryway into the Ocean Park neighborhood. The unscreened and unbuffered bulk storage yard is not ideally situated adjacent to dwellings and as stated above not preferred along this portion of Shore Drive. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7, 8, 9 Page 3 The Shore Drive Corridor Plan, part of the Comprehensive Plan's Reference Handbook, includes design recommendations for the Shore Drive Corridor addressing setbacks, massing,scale and context, building materials, pedestrian orientation,and parking location. Staff's review for consistency with the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines ("the Guidelines") is provided below. Setbacks and Massing-The Guidelines recommend placing structures close to right-of-way lines to create more architectural interest. Also recommended is that facades be articulated to reduce the scale of the structure and the one-dimensional appearance of buildings to encourage a more human scale and pedestrian orientation. Consistent with the Guidelines,the front facade of the building is located at the front yard setback and has multiple street-oriented entrances with interesting architectural features such as porches and columns that enhance the exterior appearance of the buildings and prevent linear massing. Scale and Context-The immediate surrounding developments on the south side of Shore Drive consist of two- story townhomes.The subject site is within the Mixed Zone of the Shore Drive Corridor and fronts Shore Drive, where a higher and denser development is more appropriate. Less than half a mile east of the subject site, before the Lesner Bridge,there are apartment buildings as tall as 15-stories that are also located within the Mixed Zone of the Shore Drive Corridor. It should also be noted that the building height for by-right developments within the existing B-2 Community Business District, of which there is 3.20 acres, can be built up to a height of 200 feet. Building Materials-The Guidelines specifically call for high-quality materials for the walls, roofs,windows and doors.The proffered elevations identify materials and design elements of architectural roof shingles, premium vinyl siding, brick veneer,vinyl column and aluminum railings, board and batten and shake siding accents,and vinyl windows,all of which are consistent with the Guidelines with the exception of the wall materials.The exterior walls will include of the use of premium vinyl siding and brick veneer while the Guidelines recommend use of"clad in wood, cedar shingles, hardboard siding, lightweight concrete siding,or shingles." Pedestrian Orientation-The conceptual site layout depicts a 10-foot multi-use trail along Shore Drive to be installed by the applicant. Pedestrian pathways are provided throughout the development for access to the parking garage, community amenities,commercial space, and public streets. In addition,a striped crosswalk will be provided to access the Pleasure House Point Trail located west of this development.The multiple pedestrian access points and green space along Shore Drive achieve a multi-modal option for residents. Parking—The proposed four and a half-story parking structure is wrapped by the four-story apartment building, which creates a more aesthetically pleasing design that blends in with the surrounding residential community. With the exception of parking area for the existing boat sales dealership located between the building and public street,that does not conform with the Guidelines,all new surface parking spaces are located toward the rear of the building and screened from the public rights-of-way as recommended in the Guidelines. The concept plan indicates a proposed community identification signage at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. An exhibit of the freestanding sign was not provided with the submittal; however, a condition is recommended that such a sign have a brick base, be no taller than eight feet high and eight feet long, be externally lit, and be constructed with materials and colors that complement the exterior of the proposed apartment building.The submitted renderings also depicts an iconic identification feature,specifically a sculpture, at the entrance along Shore Drive.A condition is recommended for the installation of such a feature and will be reviewed at final site plan. While not required, a preliminary stormwater management analysis was submitted to the Development Services Center (DSC)outlining the proposed stormwater strategy for this site.The DSC has reviewed the preliminary stormwater analysis and finds that the submitted stormwater strategy has the potential to successfully comply with stormwater regulations for this site. More detailed information can be found in the Stormwater Impacts section of this report. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7,8,9 Page 4 The applicant submitted a revised Traffic Impact Study(TIS)for review on August 20,2021.The revised TIS considers traffic volume for developments on the B-2 and PD-H1 zoning districts that could be constructed today as a matter of right. The TIS assumes that the B-2 zoned parcel (2.08-acre),excluding the 1.04-acre portion that is occupied by the Lynnhaven Marine Boat Retail, could be developed with a 4,000 square foot eating and drinking establishment with a drive-through and 26 multi-family units could be developed on the 1.9-acre portion zoned PD-H1.The combined average daily trips(ADT)for these developments could be up to 2,074. However, multi-family development within the Shore Drive Overlay District would be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit;therefore,Staff excluded the ADT generation of the 26 dwellings from this analysis.The ADT generation from a fast food restaurant with a drive-through could be up to 1,884,which is approximately 30% more trips when compared to the 1,448 ADT generated by the proposed 197 multi-family units. The TIS indicates that the overall operations at the Shore Drive/Marlin Bay Drive intersection will be acceptable in the peak hours with the proposed development. However,the TIS shows that the delays for traffic on northbound Marlin Bay Drive will increase significantly with this development in the AM and PM peak hours if the signal timing at this intersection is not modified to provide more green time for the Marlin Bay Drive movements. The applicant's engineer performed a signal system retiming study to show that Shore Drive corridor traffic would not be significantly impacted by giving green time to the northbound approach and taking time away from Shore Drive at this intersection. The revised TIS also recommends for an installation of a left-turn lane on westbound Shore Drive at the Ocean Tides Drive/Powhatan Avenue intersection for vehicles turning into the proposed development. The applicant submitted a revised concept layout plan that included the new left-turn lane as recommended by the TIS. Traffic Engineering has reviewed the revised TIS and concurs with its findings. With respect to school impacts,Virginia Beach City of Public Schools Staff finds that the number of students generated by the development can be accommodated for the respective grade and attendance zone. The schools are all currently within an acceptable utilization range of+/-10%of optimum capacity. Based on these considerations,Staff recommends approval of these applications,subject to the proffers and conditions below. The applicant met with the Ocean Park Civic League and Shore Drive Community Coalition to discuss the details of the requests. Details of the project are also posted on a website created by the applicant. The applicant discussed the elements of the project with the Bayfront Advisory Commission (BAC) and their design committee.The BAC recommended that the south wing of the building adjacent to existing townhouses be reduced from four to three stories. While the applicant did not make this adjustment,the scale of the proposal was reduced from the original request of 227 multi-family dwelling units to 197. The BAC passed a motion to not support the project stating that it did not meet the density recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan or the elements of the Design Guidelines in terms of the scale and context of new buildings in relation to the character of the site. Recommended Conditions for Street Closure 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee.The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures,"approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the properties and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed areas into the adjoining parcels.The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said plat shall include the dedication of a 25'wide public drainage easement along the eastern half of the proposed closure area of Ocean Tides Drive,subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works,and the City Attorney's Office,which easement shall include a reasonable right of ingress and egress. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8,9 Page 5 3. The applicant or the applicant's successors or assigns shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for the closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved for recordation within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. Proffers for Rezoning The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved,the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. Proffer 1: When the Property is developed, it shall be as a 197 unit multifamily residential community substantially in accordance with the exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY—VIRGINIA BEACH,VA, Conceptual Layout—April 01, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development (the "Concept Plan"). Proffer 2: When the Property is developed,vehicular ingress and egress to the Property shall be limited to one (1) access from Shore Drive and one (1) access from Marlin Bay Drive substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. Proffer 3: When the Property is developed, the MARLIN BAY apartment building shall have the architectural design, appearance and exterior building materials substantially as depicted and described on the exhibits labeled "MARLIN BAY NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT—SHORE DRIVE,VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, PROPOSED ELEVATION —EXTERIOR MATERIALS", dated April 23, 2021, prepared by Cox, Kliewer& Company, P.C.,which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development (the "Elevations"). Proffer 4: All lighting on the Property shall be limited to that necessary for security and safety purposes and to comply with applicable laws and shall be shielded to prevent glare and spillover onto adjacent properties. 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: Staff has reviewed the Proffers listed above and finds them acceptable. They provide assurance that the development of the site will be as depicted on the proffer concept plan, elevations and renderings. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the agreement and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 6 Recommended Conditions for Conditional Use Permit 1. When the Property is developed it shall be no more than 197 multi-family units with vehicular ingress and egress limited to one (1) access from Shore Drive and one (1)access from Marlin Bay Drive with a layout in substantial conformance with the exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY—VIRGINIA BEACH,VA, Conceptual Layout—April 01,2021", prepared by Timmons Group,which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development(the"Concept Plan"). In no case shall the area labeled "Existing Boat Sales" and the associated parking lot be developed with any dwelling units. 2. Consistent with the concepts of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan adopted by the Virginia Beach City Council on March 28,2000,the applicant shall construct and provide a public pedestrian/bike easement for the 10-foot wide multi-use trail depicted on the concept plan exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY—VIRGINIA BEACH,VA, Conceptual Layout—August 30,2021", prepared by Timmons Group,which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development.The multi-use trail shall be paved with a material acceptable to City Staff and the easement shall be recorded with the Clerk Circuit Court prior to final site plan approval. 3. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted that is in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan entitled, "MARLIN BAY—VIRGINIA BEACH,VA, Conceptual Landscape Plan—August 30,2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development.A Site Plan shall not be released until the Landscape Plan is approved by the Development Service Center Landscape Architect.Any dead,diseased,or dying plantings shall be replaced by the next planting cycle. 4. The required Category IV landscape buffers shall be planted with evergreen trees and shrubs.The trees shall be permitted to grow and be maintained at a minimum height of 20 feet;the shrubs shall be permitted to grow and be maintained at a minimum height of five(5)feet. 5. Dumpster(s)shall be enclosed with a solid brick wall on three sides in color and material to match the building and any required screening shall be installed in accordance with Section 245(e)of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The freestanding Community Identification Sign shall be located substantially at the location identified on the exhibit referenced in Proffer 1 and limited to a monument style sign with a brick base, no taller than eight feet high and eight feet length,externally lit,constructed with materials and colors that complement the exterior of the apartment building. 7. An iconic,freestanding feature shall be installed on the property as a visual amenity at the entrance from Shore Drive.Said feature shall be depicted on the final site plan and submitted to the Planning Director for review and ultimate approval authority. 8. Any onsite signage shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and there shall be no neon,other than individual channel letters lighted with internal neon and as approved by the Zoning Administrator,or electronic display signs or accents, installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, in or on the windows, or on the doors.There shall be no window signage permitted.The building signage shall not be a"box sign"and the proposed sign package shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and acceptance prior to the issuance of a sign permit. 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 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8, 9 Page 7 Planning/Development Services Center and Department of Planning/Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application 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. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being in Suburban Focus Area 1—Shore Drive Corridor.The Shore Drive Corridor is an integral part of the Bayfront Community, extending from North Independence Boulevard to First Landing State Park.While primarily a residential community,the corridor shares the responsibility of being one of Virginia Beach's primary east-west connectors,creating unique and sometimes problematic challenges.The area is considered a resort neighborhood and not a resort destination.The Shore Drive Corridor is primarily a residential neighborhood area with commercial uses to support the residents. The Shore Drive Corridor is an integral part of the Bayfront Community,extending from North Independence Boulevard to First Landing State Park.While primarily a residential community,the corridor shares the responsibility of being one of City's primary east-west connectors.The area is considered a resort neighborhood and not a resort destination. It is also characterized with primarily neighborhood residential area, commercial uses that supports the neighborhoods,and passive recreational and tourism activities. Similar to all the Suburban Areas in the City,the character of the established neighborhoods along the Corridor must be preserved and protected.Though revitalization and reuse of existing commercial properties in the Corridor is encourage, one must be mindful of the land use compatibility and avoidance of over-commercialization to ensure that resort-based uses complement rather than dominate the Corridor. Future residential uses should strive to achieve the lowest reasonable density to be compatible with the existing neighborhood residential density. Planning policies that apply to this request include improving the land use compatibilities, avoiding over- commercialization, preserving and protecting the character of established neighborhoods and achieving the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses. Natural & Cultural Resources Impacts The site is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.The site is also located in the AE and X Flood Zones with a Base Flood Elevation of seven feet.There do not appear to be any significant natural or cultural resources associated with the site. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7, 8,9 Page 8 Traffic Impacts Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Existing Land Use 2a—No Data Available Shore Drive 37,136 ADT1 36,900 ADT 1(LOS°"D") Existing Zoning —1,732 ADT Existing Zoning 2c-1,884 ADT Marlin Bay Drive No Data Available Proposed Land Use 3-1,448 ADT Mystic Cove Drive No Data Available AM Peak Hour—91 ADT PM Peak Hour—108 ADT 'Average Daily Trips 2a as defined by a boat sales 3as defined by 197 multi-family ' LOS=Level of Service dealership and boat storage yard dwellings 2b as defined by a 3.12-acre site zoned B-2 2c as defined by a 2.08-acre site zoned B-2 with a 4,000 square foot restaurant with a drive-through Master Transportation Plan (MTP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Shore Drive in the vicinity of this application is considered a four-lane divided major urban arterial.The MTP proposes a six-lane facility within a 150-foot right-of-way. Currently,this segment of roadway is functioning near capacity at a LOS D. The Shore Drive Corridor Improvements-Phase IV project begins at the Marlin Bay Drive intersection and ends at the west end of the Lesner Bridge.This project will improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and safety in the roadway and intersections; improve storm drainage; include a multi-use trail, 5-foot sidewalk and on-street bike lanes; and enhance the corridor with aesthetic elements such as landscaping and lighting. It will include improvements at the East Stratford Road intersection. The project is currently in the design phase and construction is scheduled to begin in mid- 2024. Marlin Bay Drive and Mystic Cove Drive are two-lane divided local streets. There are currently no plans to improve these roadways. Public Utility Impacts Water The subject sites,3829 and 3785 Shore Drive,are connected to City water services.The proposed development will be required to connect to City water and obtain an approved variance from the Public Utilities Design Standards for multiple services on a single parcel.There are existing 16-inch City water main along Shore Drive,eight-inch water main along Marlin Bay Drive, and 6-inch water mains along Ocean Tides Drive and Mystic Cove Drive. Sewer The subject site,3785 Shore Drive, is connected to City sanitary sewer service.The proposed development will be required to connect to City sanitary sewer service and obtain an approved variance from the Public Utilities Design Standards for multiple services on a single parcel.There are two 8-inch City sanitary gravity mains along Shore Drive, an 18-inch HRSD force main along Shore Drive,and 8-inch gravity mains along Ocean Tides Drive and Mystic Cove Drive. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8,9 Page 9 Stormwater Impacts Project Stormwater Design Staff Summary The project site consists of 5.82 acres consisting of multiple parcels and rights-of-ways and proposes a net reduction of 0.57 acres of impervious cover from existing condition.The northern portion of the project currently drains to the public drainage system in Shore Drive, and the southern portion drains to the public drainage system in Ocean Tides Drive and Marlin Bay Drive.The majority of the proposed development is designed to drain to proposed onsite stormwater management facilities (SWMFs) before discharging to the public drainage systems in Ocean Tides Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. The portion of the project that will continue to drain to Shore Drive has been reduced in both total area and impervious area. The proposed SWMFs will consist of two underground detention systems that will be located under the proposed grassed areas, parking lot, and parking garage. The underground detention systems will be used to satisfy water quantity requirements, and offsite nutrient credits will be used to satisfy water quality requirements. The preliminary grading plans propose filling the site to an elevation of 7'to 8' above sea level (existing grades ranging from elevation 4' to 7')to elevate the site/buildings above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation of 7'. The proposed detention chambers will replicate the stormwater storage volume lost by filling the site. The provided preliminary stormwater management design demonstrates conveyance of the runoff from the proposed development for storms up to and including the 100-year event plus 1.5' of sea-level rise (SLR). The submitted stormwater model included an offsite analysis to verify that the project will not have a negative impact or increase flooding levels on the existing stormwater system upstream or downstream. Based on the information provided by the Timmons Group in the Preliminary Stormwater Analysis,the DSC agrees that the proposed conceptual stormwater management strategy has the potential to successfully comply with the stormwater requirements. Final design and detailed updates will be made during site plan submittal. More detailed project stormwater information is listed below. Project Information Total project area: 5.82 Acres Pre-Development impervious area: 4.11 Acres Post-Development impervious area: 3.54 Acres Does the analysis utilize the City of Virginia Beach Master Drainage Model: Yes Does the analysis incorporate into design updated rainfall amounts(NOAA plus 20%) and account for 1.5' SLR: Yes Stormwater Management Facility Design Information Type of facility proposed: Underground detention Total storage volume provided in proposed stormwater management facilities: 113,248 cubic feet Description of outfall: Drainage from the north side of the property drains to the public drainage system in Shore Drive which continues through Ocean Park to a stormwater pump station on Powhatan Avenue. The stormwater pump station discharges through a closed pipe system to outfall into Pleasure House Creek south of Shore Drive. The underground detention systems discharge into public drainage systems in Ocean Tides Drive and Marlin Bay Drive;those two systems combine at the same outfall pipe under Marlin Bay Drive. This outfall pipe discharges to a series of interconnected ponds and channels before reaching Pleasure House Creek. Downstream conveyance path: Pleasure House Creek connects directly to Lynnhaven Bay 1TR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 10 Stormwater Quality Compliance Design Information Pounds of phosphorus removal per year(Ib/yr) required:0.86 lb/yr Method of treatment proposed:The required 0.86 lb/yr reduction is proposed to be provided through the purchase of nutrient credits from an offsite nutrient bank. Stormwater Quantity Compliance Design Information Channel protection: Provided stormwater model demonstrates non-erosive velocities of stormwater discharge. Flood protection:Attenuation of peak flow rates with no increase in flooding for 10-year storm in all evaluated stormwater structures upstream and downstream. 100-Year storm evaluation:Stormwater modeling demonstrates project meets requirement of no increase in flooding for 100-year storm in all evaluated structures upstream and downstream. Sea-Level Rise: Project evaluated,and stormwater modeling demonstrates proposed buildings will not be impacted by stormwater during 100-year(including 1.5'SLR)storm event. School Impacts School Current Enrollment Capacity Generation 3 Change 2 Thoroughgood Elementary 551 students 706 students 22 students 22 students Great Neck Middle 1,066 students 1,194 students 9 students 9 students Frank W.Cox High 1,772 students 1,963 students 10 students 10 students 1"Generation"represents the number of students that the development will add to the school. 2"change"represents the difference between the number of potential or actual students generated under the existing zoning and the number generated under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive(additional students)or negative(fewer students). Public Outreach Information Planning Commission • The applicant reported that they met with the members of the Ocean Park Civic League and Shore Drive Community Coalition on April 13,2020 and January 28, 2021 to discuss the details of the requests. Details of the project are also posted on a website (www.marlinbayvb.com) by the applicant. • The applicant presented the proposal to the Bayfront Advisory Commission on November 19,2020 and April 15, 2021. • Nine letters of support and 349 letters of opposition have been received by Staff.The letters of opposition noted concerns related to incompatible density and building height,traffic congestion,and stormwater issues. Multiple letters were received from the same individuals in opposition to these requests. • As required by the Zoning Ordinance,the public notice sign(s)was placed on the property on August 9,2021. • As required by State Code,this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot Beacon on Sundays,August 22, 2021 and August 29,2021. • As required by City Code,the adjacent property owners were notified regarding the request and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on August 23, 2021. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7, 8, 9 Page 11 • This Staff report, as well as all reports for this Planning Commission's meeting, was posted on the Commission's webpage of www.vbgov.com/pc on September 2, 2021. City Council • As required by City Code,this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot Beacon on Sundays, October 3, 2021 and October 10, 2021. • As required by City Code,the adjacent property owners were notified regarding both the request and the date of the City Council's public hearing on October 4, 2021 • The City Clerk's Office posted the materials associated with the application on the City Council website of https://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/city-clerk/city-council/Documents/BookmarkedAgenda.pdf on October 15, 2021. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 12 Street Closure Exhibit — Clipper Bay Drive INDICATES CLIPPER BAY I DRIVE TO BE CLOSED AREA TO 1489-20-9631 INDICATES CLIPPER BAY SHORE DRIVE DRIVE TO BE CLOSED AREA TO 1489.28.6483 U.S. ROUTE 60 INDICATES CLIPPER BAY VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED VDOT PROJ.0060-075-000.2175-09 AREA TO 1489-28.9631 N82"4277 E 1482'4277'E 87 83' N82.422rE INDICATES CLIPPER BAY s\ 49 23' 1 38 60' / DRIVE TO BE CLOSED �— M-116'TO •♦ /V AREA TO 1489-28-9308 MARLIN BAY �+♦ ' I DRIVE \ --—x— ; r5 1 Iy,F I CCLF cr q JTR.U 1 ,3 \ D B 4239,PC1529 I ` CI 73A -PARCEL A' j ZONED B23 t n 1 X GPIN 1489-28-9631-0000 �� $-4 1\ I �aWa�da 0 9f4mgW 'ot \1:o to N 0 C\ PARCEL C-1 P ^+ o t'to'?J \ f 7.N6 SQ.FT. m �\\ o m\2�G 0.170 ACRES 4 `\ \ r. \ \ I N� 1 (1 \O',9 SHORE DRIVE AREA # n �♦ PROPERTIES.LLC ems\ '' INST 20080818000976300 \ M B 5,P. 197 1 + • ZONED POHt \ON �, a 2 GRIN 1489-28-6485-0000 �'� �♦ I V vr 2 ill 'vv PARCEL C.4 �� \ "" 1.n a CI 11.161 SQ.FT. ��0�p�i r�I\ I 0.256 ACRES \ �4r'O cjl 1 — ON f 1.1 k .c LINE TABLE \` \ N. c' 4, — ! .t \\ y LINE BEARING LENGTH i J \\ L3 807•2954'E 28 49' $ 4/ S./ ir SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES /6/ &CURVE TABLE titli op SCALE 1'=40 .+1iP I/f 0 40' 80 G ERIC S. PATTERSON> REVISED: Lic. No. 2412 STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT 05/10/2021 ea _b OF s 76,414 SQUARE FEET PORTION OF 08/11/2021 CLIPPER BAY DRIVE t 08/23/2021 'IO C' (FORMERLY ICHMOND'CRESCENT) ) JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7, 8, 9 Page 13 Street Closure Exhibit — Clipper Bay Drive PO JTR LLC D B 4239,P 1529 'PARCEL 8' M B 50.P.33 ZONED 82 O GPIN 1489-28-9631.0000 PARCEL C-2 4r4 5.094 SOFT. h- et.4c. 0.135 ACRES 44. 4,, of y Re, 4/p c,B ` � p "� o V C,, rdp:R'Oy C' q, 8q y 6tLf '�e • r 42e ' OD CR °R/ 7( C?�'�!D_'ol-nt,/ k f SeekTiE ru `. b H/NpR�E,DJ e y PARCEL C-3 �'/44PR0 C8 G4 °', 14. NI 1,968 SC FT. YFOI co y�� ry�ti 0.045 ACRES/IC' 'c Ns. .47)4bl* STREET '11 / NoF \moo is i 4. SHORE DRIVE AREA \ `'PROPERTIES LLC INST 20190912000773330 \ AM8 113.P 14ZONED PDH 1 404�,'�GPIN 1489.28-9308-0000tt / fir ,1. I SHORE DRIVE AREA liff SUBDIVISION OF PPROPERTIES,LLC PARCEL A' Q`INST 20080818000976300 MB 137.P 49ZONED POHt Q., iL�� hO[GPIN 1489-28.6485-0000 OG q 31 ' INDICATES CLIPPER BAY LINE TABLE AREAAR TO 1489-228--�1 LINE BEARING LENGTH 1 INDICATES CLIPPER BAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED L 1 537.57121V 2790' 1 AREA TO 1489-284485 L2 N16'1225'E 25.00' ' INDICATES CLIPPER BAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED AREA TO 1489-28.9631 Op IN►DICATESCLIPPER BAY .41S i..01.1 DI� • DRIVE TO BE CLOSED SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES // AREA TO 14�-?84308 &CURVE TABLE '511- 1 SCALE 1"z4V 8 ERIC S PATTERSDR> L" No 2412 STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT REVISED: 40. RC ep'tj-L/ OF*26,414 05/10/2021 ( SQ/AHF FfF7 f k rlo+r of /11/2021 �0 `� CLIPPER BAY DRIVE (FORMERLY RICHMOND CRESCENT) 08/23/2021 (M.S.5,P. 197) JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8,9 Page 14 Street Closure Exhibit — Ocean Tides Drive DRIVE SEE DETAIL SHEET NBT*27.06'6 SHOR ROUTE 60 �.OF.WAY L3 U•SN PGBLIC RIG,000 2175-09 LI L2 / VAR.-T MO+ Opp D75 42-27•E t� ,/(t, ‘ ^} 4 PROPOSED 25'PUBUC 11 DRAINAGE EASEMENT \ tile i ; 6.436 SQ.FT. 0.125 ACRES INDICATES OCEAN TIDES % >a I t I DRIVE TO BE CLOSED % Feint ;* L_ _ AREA TO 1489-28-9631 ' 11 1 Il �3 N� i -- INDICATES OCEAN TIDES �I BAYLWERBUILDING LLC DRIVE TO BE CLOSED o W F� V i., INST 2008092300 1 1 194 30 j AREA TO 1489 38 2674 U 2 O U 'PARCEL A•1' M8203P6 •ten INDICATES PROPOSED > i II ZONED B2 ` 25'PUBLIC 1� F� GRIN 1489-38-1674.0000 DRAINAGE EASEMENT �'> II 110W,c 1. 'i I ai l iril 5'FM DEDICATION JTR LLCNiF col i I..Wi111 DB 2708 P 725 D B 4239 P 1529 croft 'PARCEL 8' t tt PARCEL 0.2 TO 44 a ZON6DB23 z�fl BAYLINER BUILDING.LLC Qit II TOTAL AREA=5 614 SO.F T GRIN 1489 18-9631-0000 W ' I M 0.129 ACRES PARCEL 0-1 TO JTR.LLC V I. TOTAL AREA-6.6311 SQ.FT. Qum., j V 0.162 ACRES 11 ,. I'll L5. CaIt LINE TABLE �s � ,•31�'' LINE BEARING LENGTH V.'' r"` L f N82'4277'E 1150' 2O 20' f 1- 5'RAN DEDICATION �_ MB 113 P 14 L2 N86`1652 E 37 1Z 25' I i mrn Ayr at- L3 N82 27106E 35 50 W ;. O.i SUBDIVISION OF L4 580'3109W 26.85' 0 g ! m�am PARCEL 'B' 4 ()� ¢�v� MB 137 P 49 TA +gZ - 61CLF J \ R*919 72'` C,5 Y CLIPPER BAY DRIVE CLIPPER 8A ( OR 5RP. 197C( NIM ROVEDENT) (50 RIGHT OF•W EI{IMPROVED) (50 ThGHT•OF.WAY) CLF CHAIN LINK FENCE ,TN Op SCALE 1's40 RA' RIGHT•OF-WAYP1P yi _- WF WOODEN FENCE t' � 0 40' BC' SEE SHEET 2 FOR NOTES &CURVE TABLE S PATTERSON s STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT REVISED: Lk No 2412 OF 211,252 SQUARE FEET PORTION OF OS/10/2021 oB-z1-yl OCEAN TIDES DRIVE 08/11/2021 <•4� 4-41 (FORMERLY ALLEGHANY AVENUE) nQ I 2 I'fM 1 (M.6 5•P. 197)(0.8 2708. P 725) JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 15 Proposed Conceptual Site Layout orr E - .,r _ . w'' 3T ( a a g; x 'g to 'ill' :::. , flhiij "i , _ .:P, • r' -4, 4' s �_ 0 4 ) I r S� / � / H _ Noe N f rt. 1 41-- 3, _,,.�., /' z - Ir \ ' A? fi Z ( / F W A • < f Ox s 1< ` ,ate c JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 16 Proposed Conceptual Landscape Plan f 1 r --- `i J r of & Hh „. , . ______ ., , ,1 ° pig q iz „, t a 1 }}, y9 p • 1 :o , i a �e€E i5€ i Bi:S �! si ` j • , % i c .t .., gin 0 0 0 0} r W ,Ti - lJ _ �_\ v, 'i ` 7 "fit,f a Ii --  ; 3 \ I. Q. _ L s jf -ri et ,', \ ;\ r ______iji : 1 ' Vs;4 m V,e 7 gtro s, • : V C' Sit ra !RI itf 1TR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 17 Proposed Elevations Plan 1 ts 3 S 2 Y Y I i al Cc 5 HitCie o I i E W / W / W o p I .4 i -ice:: a , : L _,, :itit . R -.t.... i �. ' • `ti.tr a T It C 1( w it,M'3l OJ x� 3UYSG Z .•' y`` - w f a.3 ; 4 e i s ft J = f 3 a i < i v JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 18 Proposed Elevations Plan 1 1- 4 5 y g 4 L 1 t 6 t < QJ t I P Y k 5 f @ Fd i F 3 p f ire 4 f L f ` 3 9 Q f E I : : E i 16 W 1 u, z o 1 i EN Q -- o a 0 w Cl_ PP CI am ■is Li L7 — I II- r r - EN um MI II II 111 `- u u r a LJ Li v Li 1 III _ I '; HRH Z - TeA. w M 11 fl 11 > LLI F"_ - o i AJ a `s k z f Wb JO/V.101301'tl 1te L 1 i 1. •- .• : i ; , 11 15 . £t im i I. ♦ .. • g g ! FF E JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 19 Proposed Conceptual Lighting Plan ` ,_ F iI Fg \ Y • 1 : I �i. �� • �. JCS 1 \ m : t.:-.{ F� ito/H- j - F f JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 20 Proposed Renderings ,.. ..*:::„ ,.. ..' . ::: ,-;i• -;11111, :1016.': " 4.,',14;:, -`..-''' s -- - 111111kOin.';',.. 1r, ; ,- ..: ow?. r-- A . .I. -1 V. 14§,... . .. ‘,...'..---' .0 --',4 / •••• .. .: ' --- ___.----- - - ...;" - ,._..-, ...? *--• -- .' ......-TV'7 '-. ,T,..-• ,----'. Al jil -. ----' -..*_&4tirni - -..4,.7-.7-:•:--.,- -lilt - 1 r ---*-,, .r. . _ i _.1 . -__ .,_ .._... ____, , i , II ' " ' .)" - - '' 4 4.. E -11 1 ilij i L‘il HI _.. 1._. - ' - - , _ .... ... • - _ ..iiiii,.. .4...._• _ - kg —...--7y; • -,- -4,1 - - --, A-- -1 '141 nit ) :WI itit. ' '- ii II "Ell I l) i'7,, .4 ,gt. , it 1- : !".:: -_ _2 -1. ,- 1 F 1 1 11 I II 1 .., 7.*. ' r —116, • -zsti %.,,t 1.• . ,L. , - - — .. -I. ,. _. -- ----1-_-___- -•-- i• - .‘ _ - ----war '•-- ----- -- •- -, --s..`"siliti _ _ _ , • "'''.....: ,_. ,,,,'?-2-.„ lik•-.., ,--, , . . -'- - --'' '''''' 4110.-'• Ilk,- 4iNert., - W..' 4. allk. 1,_ ' - _ , ---- i . , 4 ...: 'tr.' - -• . _ T -. -- . . . ..... , 1 [ , . r•,--_-2"''''...Z%.4 4: -,. - II- lik !- - - - - ' _ - - -- --------- -,..--c•-_„,„?..:„Inc.,tz,- . ' , , ' , - -- - . -_'--s4 • i - r -1 a ,• ....... • • I -" - 1 - t . '• lig , •...--..,' .-rif s — mir"1" ... _- -- I ' 1------.7.,•......-4, ' _7- ---- ---- . --- ----- - • - - _ JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 21 Proposed Renderings .S -. rt _ r -• r 'ter _ r ' f; `.: En j -- 1, F �4 fi. may r' ;'� s. ...T,. _'fir! `1. -_ • ' t JYti * • " 7-1, ili.,,,b,:-: ,.' , a x I . _, .,,,,,, ....,,,,,... :.......... 43.- , •-i ___, F11 i, , __. , , _ ;_. _,...... ........7_ 4. ,:., ,t., -.1 .Fijiir i I 1/1111 ! ,;•' ' - .; .. . ,s.•....,. .ter„,, . JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 22 Proposed Renderings — Improvements Not Proffered y Ainal- v,,.. iiili,',_ -14 .'' ! a ' ' - ' i x. • Y .... . A_ . . -,4- •,:a.-.1,' • t r.:;1 .‘',.---.1. ' . °:,1 iii.74:.'-'-i---' fit • -. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 23 Site Photos • S X i p Ms• - _ • Rom, '-�► �� ,. � te• C F k �4 , 4�Ya JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 24 Site Photos • — • S 4 . fir it -. • - > p at1§ <� �2a € Fps • ,.•+ i � 4d ` r 4 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 25 Site Photos ii 9 Iii� t n z •! -' ill 'Fr O, ; r. 1 �r iz ;ti t b w. --....� LLC 1TR, LLC & MP Shore, Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 26 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach APPLICANT'S NAME MP Shore LLC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORM The completion and submission of this form is required for all applications that pertain to City real estate matters or to the development and/or use of property in the City of Virginia Beach requiring action by the City Council or a board, commission, or other body appointed by the City Council. Such applications and matters include, but are not limited to, the following: Acquisition of Property Disposition of City Modification of by City Property Conditions or Proffers Alternative Economic Development Nonconforming Use Compliance, Special Investment Program Changes Exception for (EDIP) Board of Zoning Encroachment Request Rezoning Appeals Certificate of Floodplain Variance Appropriateness Street Closure (Historic Review Board) Franchise Agreement Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Lease of City Property Subdivision Variance Board Conditional Use Permit License Agreement Wetlands Board • .--- -� The disclosures contained in this form are necessary to inform public officials who may vote on the application as to whether they have a conflict of interest under Virginia law. • • SECTION 1 / APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FOR CITY USE ONLY/All disclosures must be updated two(2)weeks prior to any Page 1 of 7 Planning Commission and City Council meeting that pertains to the application(s). CI APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF HEARING DATi NO CHANGES AS OF CATE ® REVISIONS SUBMITTED DATE. 10.11.2021 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 27 Disclosure Statement Virginia Bea(h ❑ Check here if the APPLICANT IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. Check here if the APPLICANT IS a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. (A) List the Applicant's name:MP Shore LLC If an LLC, list all member's names: J&L Property Holdings LLC: John H. Peterson III and Lucky C. Peterson, Members McLeskey&Associates LLC : F. Wayne McLeskey, Jr. QTIP Marital Trust, Member Cheryl McLeskey, Trustee etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Terry/Peterson Residential Companies, L.L.C. Virginia Beach Fishing Center, L.L.C. See next page for information pertaining to footnotes1 and 2 • • SECTION 2 / PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete Section 2 only if property owner is different from Applicant. ❑ Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. • Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, AND THEN,complete the following. (A) List the Property Owner's name: If an LLC, list the member's names: Page 2 of 7 JTR, LLC&MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7,8,9 Page 28 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach If a Corporation, list the names ofall officers, directors, members, trustees, etc. below (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary I or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Property Owner: (Attach list if necessary) "Parent-subsidiary relationship' means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation.' See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act.Va. Code § 2.2-3101 2 -'Affiliated business entityrelationship' means "a other than relationship. parent-subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities: there are common or commingled funds or assets: the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities. resources or personnel on a regular basis: or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.Code§ 2.2-3101. • - 4 SECTION 3. SERVICES DISCLOSURE Are any of the following services being provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the Property. If the answer to any item is YES, please identify the firm or individual providing the service: IF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT ARE DIFFERENT, EACH MUST COMPLETE THE SECTION SEPERATELY Page 3 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 29 Disclosure Statement Ni13 APPLICANT Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) nn Accounting and/or preparer of your tax return IXI n Architect/Landscape Architect/ Cox Kliewer&Co,PC I I Land Planner Contract Purchaser(if other than X the Applicant)- identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) XConstruction Contractors Terry/Peterson Residential Cos,LLC Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Timmons Group Financing(include current Greystone&Co.LLC X ❑ mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) U Legal Services Williams Mullen:Wilcox&Savage-Lisa M Murphy Real Estate Brokers / ' I ® Agents/Realtors for current and u anticipated future sales of the subject property .4 SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have 1-1Z an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 4 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 30 Disclosure Statement 113 Virginia Beach CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled foi public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this tAplication. John H.Peterson, Ill 4.26.21 APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME DATE L Manaeer sf MP Shore IIC Page 5 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 31 Disclosure Statement (.14,W Virginia Beach nCheck here if the APPLICANT IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. IXCheck here if the APPLICANT /S a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. (A) List the Applicant's name:MP Shore LLC If an LLC, list all member's names: J & L Property Holdings, LLC McLeskey& Associates LLC If a CORPORATION, list the the names of all officers, directors, members, trustees, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary I or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Terry/Peterson Residential Companies, L.L.C. Virginia Beach Fishing Center, L.L.C. See next page for information pertaining to footnotes' and 2 • q. SECTION 2 / PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete Section 2 only if property owner is different from Applicant. n Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. C Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, AND THEN,complete the following. (A) List the Property Owner's name:Bayliner Building, LLC If an LLC,list the member's names:F.Wayne McLeskey,Jr. QTIP Marital Trust Page 2 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 32 Disclosure Statement �uln�nuMKµp1 ID:2 2r/4IM?MIsN66DMMCE7NUE Virginia Beach If a Corporation, list the names ofall officers,directors, members,trustees, etc. below: (Attach list If necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Property Owner: (Attach list if necessary) See Attached. 1 "Parent subsidiaryrelationship" means "a relationshipthat 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 entityrelationship" means "a relationship, other than p" p, parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.Code§ 2.2-3101. • • SECTION 3. SERVICES DISCLOSURE Are any of the following services being provided in connection with the subject of the application or Any business operating or to be operated on the Property. If the answer to any item is YES, please identify the firm or individual providing the service: IF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT ARE DIFFERENT, EACH MUST COMPLETE THE SECTION SEPERATELY Page 3 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 33 Disclosure Statement APPLICANT Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) 111 X Accounting and/or preparer of your tax return X II Architect/Landscape Architect/ Cox Kliewer&Co.PC 1 Land Planner � Contract Purchaser(if other than II Inl the Applicant) - identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed n IXI purchaser of the subject property (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) XI I Construction Contractors Terry/Peterson Residential Cos,LLC XI I Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Timmons Group Financing(include current Greystone&Co,LLC IXI I I mortgage or holders and lenders being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) IX] n Legal Services Williams Mullen;Sykes,Bourdon Real Estate Brokers/ II u Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property • • SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have I I X an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 4 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 34 Disclosure Statement - _ Virginia Beach CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this Application. John H.Peterson,III 4.26.21 I APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE _ PRINT NAME DATE Manager of MP ore I LC Page 5 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 35 Disclosure Statement OWNER Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) Accounting and/or preparer of Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP your tax return V�I Architect/Landscape Architect/ t,`I Land Planner n n Contract Purchaser(if other than the Applicant)- identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed IM/I purchaser of the subject property ��� (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) ICI Construction Contractors — l7 Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Financing(include current mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) nI I Legal Services Wilks,Alper,Harwood&McIntyre,P.0 Real Estate Brokers / X Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property f_. • SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have I I IXI an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 6 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 36 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this A 'cation. PROPERTY OWNS SiGNATU PRINT NAME UD//A Page 7 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 37 Disclosure Statement 1/13 Virginia Beach ❑ Check here if the APPUCANT IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. ❑ Check here if the APPUCANT IS a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. (A) List the Applicant's name:MP Shore LLC If an LLC, list all member's names: J&L Property Holdings,LLC McLeskey&Associates LLC If a CORPORATION,list the the names of all officers,directors, members, trustees, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary I or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Terry/Peterson Residential Companies,L.L.C. Virginia Beach Fishing Center,L.L.C. See next page for information pertaining to footnotes' and 2 4 - SECTION 2 / PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete Section 2 only If property owner is different from Applicant. • Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT a corporation,partnership,firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. ® Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER/5 a corporation,partnership,firm, business,or other unincorporated organization,AND THEN,complete the following. (A) List the Property Owner's name:JTR_LLC If an LLC,list the member's names:Randall H. Browning,Terry L.Browning&James R.Browning,Jr. Page 2 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 38 Disclosure Statement Aument.Apn tD.22E271E1B/-9883.48I 5-8456-D6ABBCE7D4EE NIB Virginia Beach If a Corporation, list the names ofall officers,directors, members,trustees, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Property Owner: (Attach list if necessary) See Attached. 1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship' means 'a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation.' See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code§2.2-3101. 2 'Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities."See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.Code§ 2.2-3101. • • SECTION 3. SERVICES DISCLOSURE Are any of the following services being provided in connection with the 5ubiect of thg ADolication or any business operating or to be operated on the Property. If the answer to any item is YES, please identify the firm or individual providing the service: IF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT ARE DIFFERENT, EACH MUST COMPLETE THE SECTION SEPERATELY Page 3 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 39 Disclosure Statement APPLICANT Virginia Beach YES NO [ SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) I�\I Accounting and/or preparer of I,\� your tax return Ixn Architect/Landscape Architect/ Cox Kliewer&Co,PC Land Planner Contract Purchaser(if other than IXthe Applicant)- identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) 71 I I Construction Contractors Terry/Peterson Residential Cos,LLC X I I Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Timmons Group Financing(include current Greystone&Co.LLC IXI mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) Xn Legal Services Williams Mullen;Sykes,Bourdon Real Estate Brokers/ II X Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property • • SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have I X an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 4 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 40 Disclosure Statement 'NB Virginia Beach CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this A lication. --- John H.Peterson,III 4.26.21 APPLICANT'S SiCNATL RE PRINT NAME DATE Manager o M' Shore LI.0 Page S of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 41 Disclosure Statement OWNER Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) I�(I Accounting and/or preparer of Cherry Bekaert LLJJ your tax return l>l Architect/Landscape Architect/ Land Planner Contract Purchaser(if other than ICJ the Applicant)- identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed RI purchaser of the subject property (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) EXI Construction Contractors nEngineers/Surveyors/Agents Financing(include current X mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) lnl Legal Services Faggert&Frieden,P.C. Real Estate Brokers/ f l a Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development Ix'Li contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 6 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 42 Disclosure Statement :sl • • • • CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information, provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this A lica n. P OP OWNER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAM DATE Page 7 of 7 JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 43 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach nCheck here if the APPLICANT IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. lnl Check here if the APPLICANT IS a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. (A) List the Applicant's name:MP Shore LLC If an LLC, list all member's names: J& L Property Holdings, LLC McLeskey&Associates LLC If a CORPORATION, list the the names of all officers, directors, members, trustees, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary I or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Terry/Peterson Residential Companies, L.L.C. Virginia Beach Fishing Center, L.L.C. See next page for information pertaining to footnotes1 and 2 4 -.4 SECTION 2 / PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete Section 2 only if property owner is different from Applicant. 111 Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. IXI Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS a corporation, partnership, firm, business,or other unincorporated organization, AND THEN,complete the following. (A) List the Property Owner's name:Shore Drive Area Properties, Lla If an LLC, list the member's names:F.Wayne McLeskey, Jr. QTIP Marital Trust Page 2 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 44 Disclosure Statement Au1Mntpvgn ID 22E21884.9883.4815.8451,D6ABBCE7e4EE NAB Virginia Beach If a Corporation, list the names ofall officers,directors, members,trustees, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Property Owner: (Attach list if necessary) See Attached. 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 entityrelationship'. means "a relationship, other than p' parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.Code§ 2.2-3101. • • SECTION 3. SERVICES DISCLOSURE Are any of the following services being provided in connection with the subject of the application or Any business operating or to be ooerated on the Property. If the answer to any item is YES, please identify the firm or individual providing the service: IF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT ARE DIFFERENT, EACH MUST COMPLETE THE SECTION SEPERATELY Page 3 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 45 Disclosure Statement APPLICANT Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) n Accounting and/or preparer of I I your tax return IXI I I Architect/Landscape Architect/ Cox Kliewer&Co.PC Land Planner I I Contract Purchaser(if other than the Applicant)- identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed n n purchaser of the subject property (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) X Construction Contractors Terry/Peterson Residential Cos,LLC IX! Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Timmons Group Financing (include current Greystone&Co,LLC IX mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) IXI Legal Services Williams Mullen;Sykes,Bourdon Real Estate Brokers/ II X Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property • • SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have Man interest in the subject land or any proposed development ICI contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 4 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 46 Disclosure Statement N,c4' I3 Virginia Beach CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this Application. — — -- John H.Peterson,III 4.26.21 APPLICANTS SIGNATURE PRINT NAME DATE Manager of MP Shore LLC Page 5 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 47 Disclosure Statement OWNER Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) IXI ri Accounting and/or preparer of Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP I� your tax return F. Architect/Landscape Architect/ Land Planner LiContract Purchaser(if other than the Applicant)- identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed I I X/ purchaser of the subject property /� (identify purchaser(s)and �/ purchaser's service providers) INConstruction Contractors XEngineers/Surveyors/Agents Financing(include current U mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition ��// or construction of the property) IXI Legal Services Wilks,Alper,Harwood&McIntyre,P.0 Real Estate Brokers/ II n Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development (nl contingent on the subject public action? If yes,what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 6 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 48 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this App'cation. PROPERTY OWNE•� PRINT NAME AT Page 7 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 49 Disclosure Statement Di closure Statemen � ort , arming&Community Development r The disclosures contained in this form are necessary to inform public officials who may vote on the application as to whether they have a conflict of interest under Virginia law. The completion and submission of this form is required for all applications that pertain to City real estate matters or to the development and/or use of property in the City of Virginia Beach requiring action by the City Council or a City board,commission or other body. Applicant Disclosure Applicant Name JTR,LLC Does the applicant have a representative? ®Yes ❑No • It yes,list the name of the representative. MP Shore,LLC,Attn:John Peterson III Is the applicant a corporation,partnership,firm,business,trust or an unincorporated business?Li Yes ❑No • If yes,list the names of all officers,directors,members,trustees,etc.below. (Attach a list if necessary) Randall H.Browning,Terry L.Browning,James R.Browning,Jr. • If yes,list the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary'or affiliated business entity`relationship with the applicant. (Attach a list if necessary) See attached list. "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 5 2.2-3101. 2"Affiliated business entity relationship"means"a relationship,other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity.or(iii)there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities,resources or personnel on a regular basis;or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code§2.2-3101. 1IP ,ge JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 50 Disclosure Statement Disclosure StatementNIS . �. Planning&Community Development Known Interest by Public Official or Employee Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action?❑Yes IN No • If yes,what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Applicant Services Disclosure 1. Does the applicant have any existing financing(mortgage,deeds of trust,cross-collateralization,etc}or are they considering any financing in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? D Yes No • If yes,identify the financial institutions. 2. Does the applicant have a real estate broker/agent/realtor for current and anticipated future sales o°the subject property? D Yes ®No • If yes,identify the real estate broker/reactor. 3. Does the applicant have services for accounting and/or preparation of tax returns provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?®Yes D No • If yes,identify the firm or individual providing the service Cherry Bekaert LLP 4. Does the applicant have services from an architect/landscape architect/land planner provided in cornection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?®Yes ❑No • If yes,identify the firm or individual providing the service. Timmons Group 5. Is there any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property?0 Yes a) No • If yes,identify the purchaser and purchaser's service providers 2Ir • JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 51 Disclosure Statement Disclosure StatementVjg ccii f1ry,ru ,A‘mc Planning&Conununity De\e r opmen 6. Does the applicant have a construction contractor in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?®Yes ❑No • It yes,!dentify the cost'uction contractor Terry Peterson Residential Companies,LLC 7. Does the applicant have an engineer/surveyor/agent in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?®Yes 0 No • If yes,identify the engineer/surveyor/agent. Tinutons Group _ 8. Is the applicant receiving legal services in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?12 Yes ❑No • If yes,identify the name of the attorney or firm providing legal services. Faggart and Frieden PC Applicant Signature I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. i understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing,I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission,City Council,VBDA,CBPA,Wetlands Board or any public body or committee in connection with this application. Applica t Signat6re Terry Lee Browning Managing Member -- Print Name and Title 11/12/2020 Date Is the applicant also the owner of the subject property? ❑Yes 0 No • If yes,you oo not need to fil,out the owner disclosure statement. FOR CITY USE ONLY/All disclosures must be updated two(2)weeks prior to any Planning Commission and City Council meeting that pertains to the applications No changes as of Date Signature - - _ �- — Print Name 3 I I JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 52 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement VB Planning&Community Development Owner Disclosure Owner Name Bayliner Building, LLC Name JTR,LLC Is the Owner a corporation,partnership,firm,business,trust or an unincorporated business?X Yes ❑No • If yes,list the names of all officers,directors,members,trustees,etc.below (Attach a list if necessary) ..F. Wayne McLeskey, Jr.,QTIP Marital Trust,Cheryl McLeskey,Trustee • If yes,list the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary'or affiliated business entity'relationship with the Owner (Attach a list if necessary) Attached Known Interest by Public Official or Employee Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action?❑Yes X No • If yes,what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? "Parent-subsidiary relationship"means"a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,VA.Code§2.2-3101. '"Affiliated business entity relationship"means"a relationship,other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or(iii)there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantialiy 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 one 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. 5I � JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 53 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement City 15Nu,±utlmA Planning Sr Community Development --_ i Owner Services Disclosure 1. Does the Owner have any existing financing(mortgage,deeds of trust,cross-coliateralization,etc)or are they considering any financing in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? ❑Yes XNo • If yes,identify the financial institutions. 2. Does the Owner have a real estate broker/agent/realtor for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property? ❑Yes XNo • If yes,identify the real estate broker/realtor. 3. Does the Owner have services for accounting and/or preparation of tax returns provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?X Yes 0 No • If yes,identify the firm or individual providing the service. _ _Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP 4. Does the Owner have services from an architect/landscape architect/land planner provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes X No • If yes,identify the firm or individual providing the service. 5. Is there any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property?0 Yes X No • If yes,identify the purchaser and purchaser's service providers. 6. Does the Owner have a construction contractor in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?0 Yes X No • If yes,identify the construction contractor. 7. Does the Owner have an engineer/surveyor/agent in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes X No • If yes,identify the engineer/surveyor/agent. 6I JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7, 8, 9 Page 54 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement 1113 Vim;.11.:Mr M Planning&Community Development - 8 Is the Owner receiving legal services in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?-'Yes ❑No • If yes,identify the name of the attorney or firm providing legal services. _Willis,Alper, Harwood & McIntyre P.C. - - Owner Signature I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete true,and accurate. I understand that. upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing.I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission,City Council,VBDA,CBPA,Wetlands Board or any public body or committee in connection with this application. Owner Signature Print Name and Title / t ii fZrZO Date - ___----- -- -- -- JI 1TR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 55 Disclosure Statement 2901 S.Lynnhaven Road p 757.213.6679 TIMMONS GROUP Suite 200 F 757.340.1415 Virginia Beach,VA 23452 wvAvArlinlonlicOm Property Information Parcel GPIN#14892864850000 Address:none assigned Land area(acres or square feet):2.026 acres City Council Election District District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning-PDH1 Overlay District Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ: N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone AE and Zone X(shaded) Property Owner Name:Shore Drive Area Properties LLC;Willie Wilcox Property Owner Address:2859 Virginia Beach Blvd,Suite 106:Virginia Beach,VA 23452 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)340-1251 Property Owner Email:Millie e mcleskev.corn Parcel GPIN#14892882470000 Address:none assigned Land area(acres or square feet):0.062 acres City Council Election District District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning:PDH1 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ: N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone AE and Zone X(shaded) Property Owner Name:Shore Drive Area Properties LLC:Willie Wilcox Property Owner Address:2859 Virginia Beach Blvd,Suite 106:Virginia Beach,VA 23452 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)340-1251 Property Owner Email:willie@mcleskey.com Parcel GPIN#14892893080000 Address.none assigned Land area(acres or square feet):0.116 acres City Council Election District:District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning:PDH1 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ: N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone X(shaded) Property Owner Name:Shore Drive Area Properties LLC:Willie Wilcox Property Owner Address:2859 Virginia Beach Blvd.Suite 106:Virginia Beach.VA 23452 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)340-1251 Property Owner Email:willie@mcleskey.com NGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 56 Disclosure Statement Parcel GPIN#14892896310000 Address:3829 Shore Drive Land area(acres or square feet):2.079 acres City Council Election District:District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning:B2 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ: N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone AE Property Owner Name:JTR.LLC;Terry Browning Property Owner Address:2009 Thomas Bishop Lane:Virginia Beach,VA 23454 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)630-1951 Property Owner Email:teambrowning15@aol.com Parcel GPIN#14893826740000 Address-3785 Shore Drive Land area(acres or square feet):1.040 acres City Council Election District District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning:B2 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ:N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone AE and Zone X(shaded) Property Owner Name:Bayliner Building LLC,Willie Wilcox Property Owner Address:2150 W Great Neck Road;Virginia Beach,VA 23452 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)340-1251 Property Owner Email:willie@mcleskey.com Parcel GPIN#14893846930000 Address none assigned Land area(acres or square feet):0.114 acres City Council Election District:District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning.PDH1 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area.Zone AE Property Owner Name:Shore Drive Area Properties LLC;Willie Wilcox Property Owner Address:2859 Virginia Beach Blvd,Suite 106;Virginia Beach.VA 23452 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)340-1251 Property Owner Email:willie@mcleskey.corn JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 57 Disclosure Statement F.Wayne McLeskey,Jr.,QTIP Marital Trust(OTIP) Entities(Companies) Owner co# name type 02 WASHINGTON SQUARE TOWNHOUSES.LLC LLC QTIP 03 Bel-Aire LLC LIC QTIP 04 Virginia Beach Fishing Center LIC LIC QTIP 05 FWM RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTIES,LLC LLC QTIP 06 2859 VBB,LLC LLC QTIP 09 Elizabeth City Development Company LLC LLC QTIP 11 Elizabeth City Airport Industrial Park,Inc. S Corporation QTIP 12 LDSM Properties LLC LLC QTIP 16 Mortons Baye LLC LLC QTIP 17 J&W Investors,LLC LLC QTIP 18 RADCLIFFE TOWNHOUSES,LLC LLC QTIP 19 Cepco LLC LLC QTIP 20 COLONY PINES APARTMENTS,LLC LLC QTIP 21 Coastal Investors LLC LLC QTIP 27 Norfolk-Virginia Beach Airport LLC LLC QTIP 29 2648 VBB,LLC LLC QTIP 30 Lynnhaven Shopping Center,LLC(dba MarketSquare)-Div.20 LLC QTIP 33 Riverwalk LLC LLC QTIP 35 NEWTOWN CONVENIENCE CENTER,LLC LLC QTIP 38 Front Street Investors LLC LLC QTIP 40 MGM Associates partnership QTIP(99%) 41 Furberfax LLC LLC QTIP 53 AIR TACO,LLC LLC QTIP 54 103,LLC LLC QTIP 85 BAYLINER BUILDING,LLC LLC QTIP 87 LITTLE NECK COMMERCIAL PROPERTY,LLC LLC QTIP 90 McLeskey&Associates,LLC LLC QTIP 91 SHORE DRIVE AREA PROPERTIES LLC LLC QTIP 92 LYNNHAVEN AREA PROPERTIES,LLC LLC QTIP 93 LITTLE CREEK ROAD PROPERTIES,LLC LLC QTIP 94 RUDEE HEIGHTS PROPERTIES,LLC LLC QTIP 55 Croupier LLC LLC QTIP c.\Users\csabol\DocumentlGndy excel\Property Oevebpment,\Shore Ornre\Copy of Company Listing 3•30-20 summary.Usx Sheet JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 58 Next Steps • Upon receiving a recommendation from Planning Commission,this request will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. Staff will inform the applicant and/or their representative of the date of the hearing in the upcoming days. • Following City Council's decision,the applicant will receive a decision letter from Staff. • Once the conditions of approval are in place and/or completed,the applicant must contact the Zoning Division of the Planning Department to obtain verification that the conditions have been met. Contact the Zoning Division at 757-385-8074. • If the request requires land disturbance and/or a subdivision of property, please contact the Development Services Center(DSC)to discuss next steps for site plan/plat review. Contact the DSC at 757-385-4621 or the Development Liaison Team at 757-385-8610. • Please note that 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 approvals allowed by this application 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. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8, 9 Page 59 Virginia Beach Planning Commission September 8, 2021 Public Meeting Agenda Items # 6, 7, 8 & 9 ITEMS 6 & 7 — Street Closures JTR, LLC [Applicant] JTR, LLC; Bayliner Building, LLC & Shore Drive Area Properties (Property Owners] Adjacent Address: portion of Ocean Tides Drive, south of Shore Drive and north of Clipper Bay Drive; and a portion of Clipper Bay Drive right-of-way south of Shore Drive and west of Ocean Tides Drive ITEMS 8 & 9— Conditional Rezoning & Conditional Use Permit MP Shore, LLC [Applicant] JTR, LLC; Bayliner Building, LLC, Shore Drive Area Properties & City of Virginia Beach (Property Owners] Conditional Change of Zoning (B-2 and PD-H1 Districts to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District) Conditional Use Permit (Multi-Family Dwellings) 3829 & 3785 Shore Drive, adjacent parcel between Marlin Bay Drive and 3829 Shore Drive RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL— HEARD Mr. Weiner: I want to say a couple of words real quick before we get started. We like doing this, Planning Commissioners, and just wanted to take a few seconds to say a couple of things. And we as Planning Commissioners, we actually have a role, and the role of a Planning Commissioner is look at proper land use, okay, whether it would be stormwater, natural resources, traffic, things like that. And I'm looking at people out here and I just want to point out one thing, please treat people the way you'd like to be treated. Okay, I've not had any problems with anybody on the phone. I've talked to quite a few people on the phone. I've had quite a few emails from everybody. Let's just treat everybody with respect, okay, and courtesy, and we will have a lot of fun up here. I want to point out a couple things. If you are here to talk as a group, or talk for a group or a Civic League, you'll get 10 minutes. Okay, for that one person, everybody else will get three, you'll see a yellow light come on, on the podium. When the little yellow light comes on, you have 30 seconds to finish up your comments. And when the red light comes on, we're going to ask you to stop. We have a lot of speakers and we want to hear everybody and give everybody the fair amount of time to talk. Okay, thank you. Madam Clerk: Okay, our next orders of business are agenda items 6, 7, 8 and 9. Items six and seven are an application by JTR LLC for street closures on a portion of Ocean Tides Drive, south of Shore Drive and north of Clipper Bay Drive and a portion of 1 Clipper Bay Drive right of way, south of Shore Drive and west of Ocean Tides Drive in the Bayside District. Eight and nine are an application by MP Shore LLC for a Conditional Change of Zoning (B-2 and PDH-1 Districts to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District) and a Conditional Use Permit (Multi-Family Dwellings) on property located at 3829 and 3785 Shore Drive, adjacent parcel between Marlin Bay Drive and 3829 Shore Drive in the Bayside District.Would the applicant or the applicant's representative please step to the podium. Mr. Weiner: Good afternoon. Ms. Murphy: Good afternoon Chairman, Vice Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Mr. Tajan and Ms. Eisenberg and Planning staff. For the record, my name is Lisa Murphy and I'm a local zoning attorney with an office at 440 Monticello Ave, Suite 2200 in the City of Norfolk. I'm here today on behalf of the applicants Marlin Bay LLC, JTR, Shore Drive area properties and Bay Liner LLC, in connection with agenda item six and seven, which are the Street Closure applications, and items eight and nine, which are the Conditional Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. These would allow for the redevelopment of approximately 6.3 acres from B-2, and PD-H1 to B-4 SD Overlay in order to construct and operate 197 unit multifamily apartment building with an existing active boat sales facility with space for additional complimentary retail uses. By way of background, the owners of the subject properties,the McCleskey and Browning families are long term landowners who are very active in the community. They carefully selected the Terry Peterson Companies as the developer for the properties based on the company's stellar reputation as a local developer with a long track record of high quality projects and a long term investment philosophy. As you all know, the Terry Peterson Companies will develop a project and they will continue to own it, they won't flip it to a, you know, a hedge fund out of Northern Virginia or New York they will own it, they will maintain it and they have a very good track record of doing so. The proposed redevelopment project and rezoning reflects years of study, analysis, market research and outreach and represents really the highest and best use of this prominent gateway to the City along Shore Drive. As you know, this is one of the City's primary East-West connectors. The Marlin Bay mixed use project involves as I mentioned the redevelopment of approximately 6.3 acres from B-2 and PD-H1 to B-4.And as I said it allows for the demolition of a boat trailer, storage yard, and indoor and outdoor boat and RV storage building, and then the construction of the new high end residential apartment community with the existing boat dealership and an additional space left over. Just wanted to touch on a few high points, the applicant after conducting outreach as you all know with various stakeholders reduced the total unit count of the project by 30 units from 227 to 197 units. Doing this allowed the applicant to reduce the height of the section of the building and you all talked about this a little bit at your informal from four stories to three stories. That's that wing that faces the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. The section of the wings of the building that will remain four stories 2 conceal the parking structure, which provides full parking for all of the complex as the staff report indicates, with a combination of uses, they still have one more parking space than they're actually required to have. It's important to note, you all discussed the fact that this complies with the Comprehensive Plan,the Shore Drive Guidelines and the Corridor Overlay. The applicant in this case, although they could, is not requesting deviations from any of the standard requirements; they meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including the Shore Drive Overlay. The apartment community itself will feature high end amenities including resort style courtyard pool, multi-story clubhouse and fitness facility, bike storage, kayak paddleboard, package delivery and a conference facility. It's also going to have a two story clubhouse and fitness facility, so this will be consistent with other very high end apartment communities in the city. The architecture of the building is designed to blend with the Bayfront community, and to create a bold statement to define this strategic focus area. The applicants have proffered the installation of a 10-foot multi use trail along the entirety of the frontage on Shore Drive together with providing pedestrian pathways throughout the development and a striped crosswalk to access the Pleasure House Point area. I wanted to just touch briefly on the street closure, it's the section of—that's not the pointer. There we go. Let's get back, it's the section of Clipper Bay from Shore Drive. There we go. It exists here right now. That's Clipper Bay from Shore Drive to Ocean Tides and then Ocean Tides will remain as part of this street closure requirement. The reviewers went out and evaluated that area and determined that there would not be an inconvenience to the public, to go ahead and close that and include it in the overall redevelopment of these five parcels. Let's take a look at your staff analysis, as a result of the carefully planned placement and design to the proposed improvements, the mixed use redevelopment project complies as staff indicates with the Comprehensive Plan, the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District requirements and the design guidelines. It's located within a mixed use zone of the Shore Drive corridor where the Comprehensive Plan and the design guidelines encourage revitalization and reuse of existing commercial properties. In fact, it stresses that uses should avoid the over commercialization and be mindful of land use compatibility. So we've got 3.2 acres that's currently in B-2 that's actually going to be reduced to just over an acre that will be in that commercial component. As the staff report indicates, because the subject property is within the mixed zone of the Shore Drive and front Shore Drive, a higher density development is more appropriate. Less than a half mile from the site, there are apartment buildings within the mixed zone that are over 15 stories tall. Most of the buildings nearby are three stories or taller. And in fact, on the 3.2 acre portion of the property currently, which is zoned B-2, the owners could build a 200 foot building by-right and this is indicated in your staff report. The redevelopment of the unsightly boat trailer storage yard with a high end department community with an active boat dealership provides a much more desirable and more compatible transition of uses from Shore Drive to the residential dwellings within Ocean Park. Likewise, the design and orientation of the building, the setback from the intersection, which I think Mr. 3 Inman had a question about that, from the road itself, the building is set back 60 to 80 feet. And at that intersection, if you see there, it actually looks like there's we haven't measured it, it's more than 80 feet. And that was something that the applicant did at the request of the community to sort of pull the project away from the intersection. That gives us the ability to do more open space, more passive uses. So, it's very, there'll be lush landscaping; you've got the open space. You'll also have an art design feature which will be an iconic identification feature. And then as I indicated, the multi-use trail ensures that the proposed development is complimentary to the natural resource and open space of the city's Pleasure House Point Park. The multi-use trail as Mr. Lowman indicated is something that the city is going to be developing in phase four the Shore Drive improvement project. This is a big section of Shore Drive that the applicant will actually be dedicating and improving so they can continue this very nice resource for the people that live along Shore Drive. Most everybody agrees, you know, you look for the things that people agree on most, everybody agrees that the project is very attractive, and it will make this a much more appealing and impressive gateway to the city. As I mentioned, it will enhance the Shore Drive corridor to reflect the area's unique character, making the corridor functional and attractive scenic gateway and access way to the resort destination. Wanted to touch on a couple of more things, the benefits. Stormwater impacts, the subject property is currently improved with gravel, paved parking and buildings. It's almost entirely impervious, and it was developed at a time when the city did not have stormwater regulations in place. By redeveloping this property, the applicant is actually reducing the impervious cover by over a half acre and they're bringing it up to the current high standard regulations. Stormwater management facilities will be underground and stormwater will be treated before it is discharged both for quantity and quality. As a result, the total area will continue that will continue to drain into Shore Drive and Marlin Bay and Ocean Tides has actually been reduced both in area and impervious cover. The new traffic impact analysis, the applicant studied the area, the signal timing, and as the staff report indicates, with changes to the signal timing at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive that allows for more green time for Marlin Bay Drive movements. And then the installation of left turn lane into the property for westbound Shore Drive, all of the intersections will continue to operate at the same level of service. So this is not going to have a negative impact on traffic. The applicant, and this is something that normally comes up quite a bit, has proffered that it will reduce existing curb cuts through the revised, the new site plan. So instead of having four curb cuts, which you have now long Shore Drive, there'll be one on Shore Drive and then the one of Marlin Bay. This will impact, this is something that normally doesn't get looked at, but the city's economist has looked at this even with the reduced number of units, and they're predicting that over the next 20 years, the project will result in nearly$4 million in net revenue to the city. So it's very rare that you have a residential project or mixed use project that actually contributes net revenue to the city. In conclusion today, you will hear, no doubt you have heard a lot of negative speculation and conjecture regarding the impact of the proposed 4 redevelopment project on the community. Despite the applicant's best efforts to get out the facts and to address community concerns,through months of outreach and studies resulting in significant changes to key components of the project. The speculation and conjecture you will hear regarding the impact of the proposed project simply ignores the facts recognized by your professional planning staff and city engineers. This has been studied by the technical folks whose job it is to study this and they are comfortable. The Marlin Bay mixed use redevelopment project will revitalize and upgrade this critical gateway and access way to the city and is the highest and best use of this valuable corner. As the staff report indicates and as I've mentioned already, it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay and the Shore Drive design guidelines. Commissioner Oliver had a question about the siding. We had, as Hoa indicated, that was not something that had come up before the Bayfront Area Advisory Commission,when they looked at the building materials, they didn't take issue with any of the building materials. It's our thought after really researching this, that that would be that vinyl would be an appropriate siding and would actually stand up better and look better over time than the hardy plank type products, but if you know, because the multifamily is a Conditional Use Permit that's something certainly that if the Commission felt strongly about, that we could add a condition to address that. As I indicated, staff is recommending approval of all four applications.We respectfully request that you also recommend approval and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. And if not, I'll stand by for rebuttal. Mr. Weiner: Any questions? Yes. Mr. Graham: I'm sure I'll have more questions after we hear the speakers. I just saw the siding. Is it a premium quality vinyl siding? Or is it, can you or the builder or developer described the siding? Ms. Murphy: Yeah, it is a high quality premium vinyl siding where they've actually looked into what's going to stand the test of time. John, do you want to come up and address the siding?Because again, until very recently,this wasn't a question that had come up with us. Mr. Peterson: Good afternoon. John Peterson, representing MP Shore LLC. Mr. Weiner: Good afternoon. Mr. Peterson: The siding that we would be proposing is the premium vinyl siding. The way that's typically measured is based on thickness. It's 0.44 inches. And it has several benefits over the cementitious siding, hardie plank, everything from color to wear and tear, and even some environmental impacts as well. That's why we've chosen to use that material. 5 Mr. Graham: This is a little bit of a loaded question, I guess, because I have hardie plank on my house and hardie planks. I love hardie plank. But the problem with it is that it does need to be repainted, recaulked, and it does fade.This vinyl siding, how does color — how long does it last before it starts fading? Mr. Peterson: The color should be indefinite. That's the one of the major benefits of it. I think that to put some context on this, vinyl siding today is not what vinyl siding was 30 years ago. And it's because of the fact that hardie plank and the other brand of cementitious siding gained popularity. So vinyl manufacturers had to figure out what was deficient about their product and they've improved it tremendously. Color, you know, retaining color is one of the biggest things and you don't have to paint it. Mr. Graham: This has the same appearances as the hardie plank? Mr. Peterson: It does. Mr. Graham: That I just wanted to kind of clarify that. It is, you know, we'll get more into it later. I think it's important that whatever goes here will last. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond: I hope this isn't out of turn. But I just wanted to mention in kind of as a corollary to what you just said. This question of premium siding first came up that I remember here,when we were looking at a an apartment complex off of Newtown Road called Nexus that Boyd Companies built. You're a developer, you're familiar with it I'm sure, that was the first time I ever heard the term of premium siding and the same question came up and in the course of that debate, they'd said it's thicker. You don't see seams as much, it doesn't warp, doesn't bend, it doesn't you know, it's durable, it's much more durable, it doesn't fade anywhere near as well. You go down that and that was some years ago, if you go down Newtown Road, that's a pretty good looking project. It's very attractive project and sticks out like a sore thumb on that part of Newtown Road simply by virtue of it's, you know, of its fine appearance. So I've just wanted to add that because I forget about it later on. Mr. Weiner: And it was a long time ago. That was a while ago. That was a while ago. Yeah, that project still does look good. Mr. Redmond: It still does look good. Mr. Weiner: Okay, any other questions? Ms. Klein: I have one for the attorney, what is the price point for the apartments? 6 Ms. Murphy: John, do you want to? Do you just want to address the price point for the apartment? Mr. Peterson: At this point, it is just projections, but I think that you could look at a one bedroom that'd be probably starting around $1,400. Ms. Klein: And how many square feet is that? Mr. Peterson: Around 800 square feet. Ms. Klein: Thank you. Ms. Murphy: That's what I was gonna say. It's keeping in line with the Pearl Project, which is I don't know if you were on the commission at the time that was done, it reassures. Mr. Inman: Well, he's on that topic, what's the mix of number of bedrooms, three bedroom, two bedroom, one bedroom? Mr. Peterson: Right now we're projecting, and this could change when we get into actual design. It's a roughly 40 to 43%, one bedroom, and then about 50, I can't do the quick math 50, a little over 50% two bedroom, and there's only a handful of three bedrooms. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Wall, any questions? Mr. Wall: Can we get to the layout for the apartment complex? There's a couple things to that one. A couple of things, so the question was asked this morning, which ones are the three, not the three, the three story and the four story I think that was just to set the context? Ms. Murphy: This section right here, facing that intersection, right was the one they were able to reduce to three stories. And then right here is your parking structure. And then around the parking structure, you've got the four stories that are meant to conceal the parking structure. So you're not seeing our construction. Ms. Wall: What about the club? I mean, obviously that the pool was in the center. Where's the clubhouse that you? You said it was a two story clubhouse? Ms. Murphy: Yep. Mr. Peterson: It's actually just two and, you know, playing right out of the pool itself. It's actually built into the building. Mr. Wall: Okay, so it's part of the structure. 7 Mr. Peterson: That's correct. Mr. Wall: But that's four stories right there. So is that? Mr. Peterson: Two stories of the common area, and then there'll be two stories of apartment. Mr. Wall: Okay, all right. And the landscaping, there's the access drive on the kind of the south side on the bottom that connects to Marlin Bay Drive. What is — so there's landscaping on that side adjacent to the existing properties, right there. What is that maybe I over looked at, what is that? What is the plan to be? Mr. Peterson: The requirement in this zoning category is a 15 foot landscaping buffer, so those are the—I don't know the exact species, but they'd be very tall, dense trees. Mr. Wall: But right there, that's four stories. So I mean, they have to be pretty tall too. because they'd be looking, those four stories would be looking down into the existing, kind of existing properties, because those are only generally two stories that are adjacent, there. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Bradley? Mr. Bradley: I've got a question just about parking in general. And maybe this is kind of a preliminary stage for you. But I know you meet the minimum zoning, but how are you going to allocate it when you got one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom. In my experience, when I go to apartment complexes, there is always very few guest parking spaces available, and it's hard to access them a lot of times. Mr. Peterson: Well, we had not determined whether we would do assigned parking spaces. That's a kind of a market question. Candidly, we think that the parking ratio that's required as a minimum is higher than necessary. And that's not conjecture that's based on experience of the other couple thousand apartments that we either are managing or own. And we have parking ratios that are typically lower than the parking ratio that we have here. And we don't have any parking issues there. So that's based, that's how we kind of arrived at parking numbers, but ultimately, we had to meet the minimum in working with the planning staff. Mr. Inman: How many parking spaces are there? Mr. Peterson: I don't remember the number. Ms. Murphy: I believe, it's 390. Let's see 390 spaces, actually 391 spaces, 358 for the multifamily, and then you've got 32 spaces for the commercial building. Mr. Inman: How many for the residential? 8 Ms. Murphy: 358 for the multifamily part of it. Mr. Inman: Thank you. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Thank you. Oh I am sorry. Mr. Wall: So this is kind of a general question. But so the reference guidelines and reference documents from the Comprehensive Plan, I think you analysed these referenced Comprehensive Plan shows the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, which are both fairly dated in early 2000s, even late 1990s, I think is from the ULI. They were approved and included and they included even the Pleasure House Point Park,as you know, fairly large developments. Did you all review those? And, you know, in terms of when you were, you know, doing your research? It's kind of an open questions, but I'm just curious what your review, because it's,those are dated.You mentioned the apartments aren't from the late 1990s. It even says apartments aren't, weren't even viable. They mentioned the Marina Shores as being viable. But I guess the market conditions have changed to the point that apartments are now. I mean, clearly, there are other apartment complexes on Shore Drive, but. Ms. Murphy: Yeah, and I can tell you just from having represented them, the other project at Marina Shores, The Pearl, they're actually getting rents in excess of what they've projected in their early pro-formas. Because there's so much demand in the corridor. So you've got not only do you have younger people that we're trying to attract as part of our workforce to the city, but you also have older folks who want to stay in the corridor, you know, sell their home and they can stay in an apartment and be around their grandkids and go to the same restaurants that they always go to. So, you know, in the 20-25 years since the plan was done, you've seen a tremendous increase in the need for multifamily, high quality multifamily, but you've also seen a real decrease in the need for retail. If you look up and down that corridor there are empty strip centers, you've got vape shops, you know, local breweries here and there, but there's a real struggle now for retail. And so one of the things that the applicants did was they really studied, okay - what's going to be successful here? What can the market support and that retail piece of it no matter how they looked at it, no matter where they looked? There really is not a big demand because you don't have although it seems like a big population, a lot of areas that you're covering is water. So there are fewer people that you would think within the projected area. Mr. Graham: Mr. Wall, you done? I was going to kind of follow up on that if I could. I drive by this every day and there's a lot of—there's two bank buildings, former bank buildings that are vacant. One of them has about three foot high grass out front. There is a — there's a tobacco shop. I think there's maybe two or three vape shops, laundromat, I mean there. The Shore Drive area and Great Neck area and I live in the area, I think is one of the best places to live in Virginia Beach. We have had a 9 revolving door of restaurants and retail and I would love to see some of the stuff that's along Shore Drive go away. But that's a whole another subject. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Right, we will get back to you, thank you. Madam clerk. Madam Clerk: Okay. First speaker, is Danny Murphy here? Okay, Danny Murphy, followed by Cole Trower. Mr. Weiner: Welcome sir. Please state your name for the record. Mr. Murphy: Danny Murphy. President of Ocean Park Civic League. Mr. Weiner: Sir, can you move here and handed it over to the clerk and she'll take care of that. So you can start speaking. Mr. Murphy: Thank you. Again, my name is Danny Murphy; I am the president of the Ocean Park Civic League. And first of all, I'd like to thank you all. I've been kind of stalking you over the last couple of months, watching what you do. And I know that you are very considerate and thoughtful. I've spoken to a number of you. I've spoken to a number of the city staff, and you're all very professional, I appreciate that. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank the developers and the owners of the property. We need to remain friends after this no matter what. I know, there's a lot of stiff opposition to it. But I really do think that this isn't the only thing going on. I'd like to apologize to them also for the graffiti that was placed on their banner, we do not condone that. We should operate in a civil manner. So I hope you will take my sincere apology for that. I don't know who did it. And if I did, I would certainly have words with them. So you kind of got me off, because I thought we were doing two different ones here. It's the street closure. Okay. Well, first of all, I'd like to tell you that we do oppose it, we have met with them a number of times, twice, you know, we kind of did the little dance or the poker game where they came in with 227 the first, you know, 27, broke it down to 197. And since then, there really have not been any negotiations whatsoever. I will say there was some discussions about other properties within the community. But there was no serious discussion on the number of units. Our biggest issue is density. Everything is a waterfall from density, all the issues that we have with traffic, with parking, with the environmental impact comes from the density of this, this unit or the project that they're trying to do. I'll start off first telling you a little bit about the density. The plan says that there is 31.77 units on that lot there. That is because we're using the boat sales lot to call that a zoning lot. They've taken the straight away, they're going to put an alley there so they can get through the mixed use or they can get to the zoning lot with only a 20 foot alleyway in between, they can then use the 6.2 acres, as the calculation for the density is effectively over 40 units per acre. And that's significant. The other thing is they're using mixed use being business. We just heard that retail is not being used very often on Shore Drive, if there's not much of 10 a need for there.Yet,they're telling us well,we're going to put this boat sales,we're going to have retail commercial there. But we already know it doesn't work. So what's going to happen in 5 or 10 years, they're going to proffer that they're not going to develop it. We know how proffers work. We've seen it at Marina Shores with tennis courts there, come back in a couple of years and say, Hey, you know, there's a 40 per unit building here. Let's put 25 or 30 per unit on this other one. The biggest problem with that is a zoning lot is that it's not true mixed use in terms of what the city had designed, It is strictly or not strictly, it is supposed to be used for more urban settings, such as Town Center, strategic growth areas, and not in the strategic focus areas of residential.The biggest issue they have with that right now is that if you look at the— if you look at the definition of mixed use, it says two or more separate uses allowed as a principle or conditional use, that are physically and functionally integrated. So we've got an existing boat sales, we're going to take, we're going to say, hey, let's lock it all together and call it a zoning lot, it's not integrated. It actually is only using 2000 square feet for anything other than the boat sales and to boot,they don't have the parking requirements for that 32 spaces for 12,000 square feet is nowhere near enough.They're fine on the apartment side, but they're not talking about that and the Comprehensive Plan points that out. The other problem is that zoning or mixed use says it must be within the same structure. That is clearly two structures. There's going to be the apartment complex, and then there's going to be the retail and it straddles that, and if you look at the definition, clearly not within that. The other issues that I have with it, obviously the guidelines when we talk about that, it does not meet the intent to develop mixed use as a principle tool for redevelopment as a preferred land use pattern in the strategic growth areas. Shore Drive is not a strategic growth area. As I mentioned, the proffers, talked a little bit about density in the packet that I gave out to you there. We know that the Comprehensive Plan says that the infill should be compatible with the density and preserving and protecting the character of established neighborhoods and achieving the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses. As you can clearly see, as I said, effectively that's 40 units per acre they're putting there. If you take it, and you look at and say, what are they actually developing, they are not developing the boat sales, they're only developing the one, the two lots actually PD-H1 and B-2 there. You'll notice that I pulled the open data set of address points and I plotted those out individually and I also plotted the 197 units that they want to put on that four acres of land. You'll see that there are roughly 1563 units in Ocean Park. I include Aries on the Bay, Pelican Dunes with that because the primary egress and access is from Shady Oaks Drive. If you look at the density of those other ones, the closest one is 50 units per acre, and that's at the Chesapeake House that was built in 1975. That was even before we had a Comprehensive Plan. If you look directly across the street, there's A-18 that was a B2 project that was turned similarly into apartments, A-18 those condos, the density is significantly lower on those, it's only 12 per acre. If you look at the other B-4 properties within that area, the Villas at Ocean Park, Vintage Point, Townhomes at Roanoke, Pendleton, Bar Harbor condos, Bay Vista. They're all 11 below that 31 point and significantly, as you get closer to Pleasure House Point in the green zone. Yes, it is in the mixed use of the Shore Drive area, but it's on the border of the green zone, meaning Marlin Bay is the dividing line. It sits on the very edge right next to the pristine 118 acres of Pleasure House Point. Yes, it's reclaimed natural area, but it gets significant traffic. Let's see, I think the biggest concern is what it's going to do for the neighborhood, to be honest. I look at what they're trying to do. I'm not insensitive to the building costs, I understand putting the garage and the retention vaults and everything costs money. And I know that, you know, currently, we're certainly experiencing a lack of affordable housing. I think we would have to go far to stretch that this is may not be affordable housing. It's called luxury apartments for a reason. Not that I'm not going to say it's not going to have any impact. But I believe the impact putting 200 units on four acres within a historic Bayfront community is certainly going to have a huge impact. It's going to have cascading effects. I expect my other colleagues will talk somewhat about that, walk you through the individual points. But at this point, I'd like to know who has the first question. Mr. Weiner: Questions. Yes, Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond: First off, I appreciate your call. I'm one of those guys that you had a good conversation with. And the other thing I want to say is I appreciate your apology. I was appalled frankly at the vandalism on this site. Vandalism has no part, not only in any public policy debate, doesn't have any part in the city at all. So it's property crime. So and you're the first person who's ever — I've heard express that. So I think that was important. And I appreciate that. You did a good job. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall: So would you be opposed if they — I'm not saying this is anything that we would recommend but, I mean, let's say the apartments just, any apartments there would you be opposed? Mr. Murphy: Oh, I'm not opposed to apartments whatsoever. We don't care. I mean, you could put condos there, 200 condos that have the same effect. I believe that we do need apartments within the city. It's not the apartments I oppose, or you know, I think we oppose. We're looking for, you know, I think what they presented is the maximum use for that property with 200 units. What I asked —what I think it's incumbent on you is to find the optimal use and that's taken into the factors in account of what the density is and looking at the neighborhood. So it isn't the apartments we oppose. Mr. Wall: So how many people are part of the Civic League? 12 Mr. Murphy: We have about 300 members, but there's contained family members as well. So it's more and then I've represent roughly 1400 of those are in Ocean Park. As I said, Pelican Dunes and Aries on the Bay have separate home ownerships and Baylake Pines is separate as well. Mr. Wall: Okay, so this, this map represents Ocean Park. Mr. Murphy: And Aries and Pelican Dunes, because they use the Shady Oaks Drive that comes up to the Marlin Bay intersection. So that's their main point of egress and ingress. Mr. Wall: Where is Pelican Dunes? Mr. Murphy: It would be on the top left for you. And is the green one, so the top left there put up. Mr. Wall: Okay, so that's the Dunes up there. Mr. Murphy: Yeah, that's way too. So it'll be at the end of Shady Oaks. Mr. Wall: Okay. Mr. Murphy: But they use that same entrance where the light is. Mr. Wall: Okay. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Mr. Murphy: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Our next speaker is Cole Trower and is Teesh Frazier here, okay, following Mr. Trower will be Cheryl McCluskey. Mr. Weiner: Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Trower: Good afternoon. It's a great day to be in the greatest city in Virginia in the entire country of Virginia Beach. My name is Cole Trower, I am a homeowner. At the age of 29, I bought my own home on the very street that he said that everybody is going to drive to and go to the beach, 3970 Aires Way; I have 10 years in the restaurant industry having experience as a waiter or bartender, even washing dishes. You know, it's not a glorious job. But you've got a lot of restaurants and folks on Shore Drive, that that's how they make their living. And I think a lot of my neighbors here; I might have served them an Orange Crush or Crab Dip once or twice. I also have 10 years of experience working — not 10 years of experience working for the City of Virginia Beach, one year of experience working for the City of Virginia Beach 13 briefly in economic development. And during my time for economic development, I focused on business retention and acquisition. And the City of Virginia Beach tax dollars, millions of dollars each year go towards business retention and acquisition. That's what makes our City great. We have great businesses, and people enjoy working here. One of the pillars of having economic development being so strong and when you are pitching these companies for the city is we sell them on our quality of life, and that we have places for their workers to live. And right now, young people in this city cannot find a place to live. I just got a text five days ago. Hey buddy, how's it going? I just moved back and I'm looking for a place near Chicks on Shore Drive. Do you know anywhere? I don't know anywhere. No one knows anywhere. We have all of these young people that go off to college. And then we say why don't they return? It's because number one, they don't have a place to live, that's affordable, that safe and nice. And I live and own a home, my girlfriend owns a home on the same street. And I am a member of the Aries on the Bay Civic League. And I was briefly the parliamentarian of the Ocean Park Civic League for a month or two wasn't a great job, trust me. So I will tell you this, it is not unanimous that this that are my neighbors don't want this development. You know, I think sometimes we get caught up in details and details are important. But I think sometimes we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. Our city is growing. And that's a good thing. We have people that want to live here and work here. We must make a plan for those people to thrive in our city. Because, you know, it is our future and that's the decisions made here today will impact not only our residents, our businesses, and then also you know just everything how we conduct our daily life. And I would just encourage Commissioner Wiener's comments as I run out of time. I have been slandered, attacked and just vilified on Facebook and Next Door by some people sitting behind me that have just trashed anyone that would stand up just to say, Hey, I think this might be a good idea. And I think if that wouldn't have happened, some of my neighbors might be here today saying the same thing. I appreciate your time, your public service. And I hope that we have a good lengthy debate today on the issues and stay away from vitriolic attacks like we've seen on Facebook. Mr. Weiner: Thank you for your comments. Any questions? Thank you sir. Madam Clerk: Cheryl McCleskey followed by John Pharr. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. McCleskey: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. For the record, my name is Cheryl McCleskey. Thank you for your service to the community and helping make Virginia Beach a well planned community. The McCleskey and the Browning families have owned property and Ocean Park neighborhood for over 50 years. The McCleskey family has allowed the public to benefit from the vacant open space during our ownership, including 14 the land that is now Pleasure House Point. My dream has been to fulfil my late husband's vision by developing quality, reasonably priced multifamily residential units that will allow new families to become part of this beautiful Bayfront neighborhood. We have teamed up with the Terry Peterson Residential, a family company with a stellar reputation and long term commitment to the community. John Peterson and Tuck Bowie are known for building high quality multifamily rental housing. We have also selected the well-respected Timmons Group to provide excellent project engineering and Cox Cleaver to provide design quality. Together we will create an engaging community of coastal living along Shore Drive. During this planning phase of the project, we have listened to the concerns of the neighbors and government officials and that is why we reduce the density from 227 to 197. The current zoning allows us to develop a full scale commercial and retail business without any further permission from the city government. However, we think the highest and best use of our land, our company and our community is to build multifamily housing. As you know, the housing stock in Virginia Beach is down significantly from last year for both single and multifamily housing. This development will provide reasonably priced apartment rental properties that are needed for the citizens. The city's economic impact report shows that this rezoning will have a $3.78 million net positive impact over 20 years for the city, very rare for this kind of development project. The traffic impact study demonstrates that there is a reduction in traffic from uses allowed under the current zoning. The combined average daily trips for our current business zoning is estimated to be 2074. However, if we build 197 multifamily units, the number of average daily trips will be an estimated 1448, which is 30% less than the use is allowed under the current zoning. We have also exceeded the requirements for the number of parking spaces for residents to prevent parking on neighborhood streets. Parking will be shielded from the street. The school's impact study shows our project will have minimal amount on schools. Mr. Weiner: Thanks you're your comments, any questions for Ms. McCleskey. Ms. McCleskey: I just want to say based on all these comments along with Planning Staff recommendations for approval on behalf of my company and our trustworthy building partners we ask you to approve our application. Thank you so much. Mr. Weiner: Any questions?Thank you, ma'am. Ms. McCleskey: Thank you. Madam Clerk: John Pharr followed by Andrina Fisher. Mr. Weiner: Welcome, sir. 15 Mr. Pharr: Good afternoon. All right. Thank you for giving me a couple of minutes to speak today. My name is John Pharr, and my family lives at 2105 Woodlawn Avenue. We've been there 11 years and can't imagine being anywhere else. The appearance, character, and longtime residents are some of the many reasons why we love Ocean Park. We value our privacy but welcome many to our Bayfront community. It's an excellent flow that is currently manageable. Change is inevitable in life. Many of us are asking for change that is reasonable and considerate of our beloved Ocean Park. The current Marlin Bay proposal is too aggressive and too dense for many residents. Multi story housing complex is the exact opposite of our single family homes. I believe many of us are asking to be heard. And frankly,just want to find somewhere to meet in the middle. Thanks for your time. Mr. Weiner: Thank you, sir. Any questions?Thank you. Madam Clerk: Andrina Fisher followed by Mike Wills. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Fisher: My name is Andrina Fisher, my husband and I own the townhouse at 3836 Ocean Tides Drive. When we purchased the townhouse a little over three years ago, we thought that the lot behind our home would not remain empty forever. We thought eventually the boat dealership would expand or perhaps some additional townhouses or duplexes would be built. Never could we have imagined that someone would have the idea to build a four story nearly 200 unit apartment complex right in our backyard. If you look at the plat map, our townhouse is the last end unit on the left side of Ocean Tides Drive. I've stated in my previous letters to all of you that our home would arguably be one of the most negatively impacted, should this project be allowed to move forward. The apartment complex could potentially reach heights of 50 feet or more. The developer plans to build a street directly behind our fence where no street currently exists, and trash facilities would be built close by. They also plan to close the cross over to Ocean Tides Drive. What does all of this mean for us and our neighbors? It means that we would no longer enjoy any privacy in our backyard. It means the apartment building due to its towering height will likely block most of the early to late afternoon sunlight that we currently enjoy. It means constant traffic noise from apartment residents, visitors and service vehicles entering and exiting the complex. It means light pollution at night and noise pollution all hours of day and night. We can currently access our street by turning left off of Marlin Bay Drive. But once the project is complete, we'll have to drive up the road and make a U-turn to get to our house. I don't consider that a small inconvenience. I also fear the value of our home will be negatively impacted if this development is approved.We don't want to sell,we love the charming character of the neighborhood. But the apartment complex would destroy the character of Ocean Park. I assume that many of you live in single family homes. And I'd ask each of you to imagine how you would appreciate a project of 16 this size being built right behind your backyard. I've noticed that those speaking in favor of it don't live directly next to it like our home is. Can you honestly say that this wouldn't negatively impact your quality of life or the value of your home? I'd ask you if your role in the planning commission is primarily to further the interests of developers or are you also here to protect the interests of the residents that would be negatively impacted by a development of this size? I hope the latter is also true.We aren't against appropriate development. But the proposed Marlin Bay apartment complex does not fit in the existing footprint. Hundreds of residents have reached out to you and asked you not to approve this project. Please listen to them and to us and vote no, thank you. Mr. Weiner: Any questions? Ms. Oliver: Do you mind using the pointer and pointing right where your house is placed? Ms. Fisher: Okay, I haven't used one of these before. Ms. Oliver: It doesn't work very well. I don't think. Ms. Fisher: Which button? I've got it backwards. Oops, I must have forwarded, sorry. I don't see a red button. Hang on. Okay, get the slide back and I found the red button. We are right here. So the shadow from the 15 foot tree line that they spoke about is ironically longer than the shadow from the building which could be 50 feet. So you can imagine that the shadow actually that would be cast by this building on our property is going to take all the sunlight. Ms. Oliver: So explain to me just because I don't—why you have to make a U-turn? Ms. Fisher: Because currently when you come from Marlin Bay along here, you can turn left in the Ocean Tides Drive. There's a little median strip, median strip. But the plan is to close off this median strip to create an access into the street that goes to the apartment complex. At least it was at the first plan that I saw. So right now it's an empty lot and I understand, you know, an empty lot won't remain empty forever. But you see they're building — they're planting trees directly on our fence line. Where currently there aren't any trees and there'll be 15 feet high. That's closing this in my opinion. And then you have the residents here and the four stories which I imagine they're gonna have to build up,you know, about seven to eight feet above the current elevation and then build on top of that four stories. So we'll have people that live here and here, looking directly into our backyards and into our windows. Ms. Oliver: I would imagine that's why the trees are there. Ms. Fisher: Trees are only 15 feet high. The building could be close to 50-55 feet high. 17 Ms. Oliver: Thank you. Ms. Fisher: Any other questions? Mr. Weiner: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Fisher: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Mike Wills, followed by Carley Swift. Mr. Wills: Good afternoon Commissioner, Planning Commission members. My name is Mike Wills and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about this application. I moved into Ocean Park back in 2000 and into a duplex condo. So I've been in there over 20 years, love the neighborhood, but we have seen a lot of changes, and it's getting more and more dense and nowadays, it's summer weekend, you can barely drive your car down the road, you know, with cars parked on both sides of it. So it's changed a lot. And, you know, and there are many reasons why, you know, we're opposed to this. I'm personally opposed to it, you know, number one you've heard is the density, I just don't feel that it's compatible with the existing neighborhood, and not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in the Shore Drive Corridor District. And by all means, I'm not against growth and redevelopment, I really feel like this property is prime for redevelopment, but it needs to be done within the existing zoning rules of the property and does not warrant the change. I owned a heating air conditioning electrical contracting business does a lot of new construction. Like I said, I'm all for growth and smart development. But it needs to be at the right and the right place, and not at the detriment of the existing property owners that have lived there for a long time and made Ocean Park their home under the current zoning regulations of this property as well as their own. So it needs to be developed within the existing densities of the surrounding community. And just to give you a couple of examples, you know, talk is cheap, but I want to give you a couple examples of where I personally and as well as the community put our money where our mouth is. Back in 2004, I was lucky enough to find another property in Ocean Park, a duplex, basically a duplex rental property that built in the 50s. And I decided to tear it down and build a single family home. And that's where I reside today, you know, of course, I could have put another duplex on it and made quite a bit of money. But I didn't think that was the right thing to do. We didn't need more density in Ocean Park. Then as an executive member of the Ocean Park Civic League, which I served on for many years, back in 2006-2007, we sold the old Fire and Rescue building and property that we owned in Ocean Park and again zoned R-5R we could have sold it you know to a developer let him put in a duplex on it. But we decided to put a deed restriction on it that could only be redeveloped as a single family residence. And so thus, we took a much lower value for the property than we could have otherwise received. So I asked you to please don't condone the smoke and mirrors, you 18 know, scheme to include property in this whole proposal that isn't even part of the redevelopment and do not approve this application as proposed. Thank you. Mr. Weiner: Any questions? Mr. Inman: Yes. Can you tell me, didn't you mention that there are a lot of cars parking along Marlin Bay Drive? Mr. Wills: No, not necessary Marlin Bay, I live on the other side of Shore Drive but like along Powhatan, where I come in and out of my section of neighborhood. There are cars every weekend parked on both sides; you can barely get your one car down the middle of the street. It's gotten really bad. Mr. Bradley: Does that relate to this development? Mr. Wills: Well, I just think,you know, with all these apartments, you're gonna have lots more visitors to the area. Obviously the people that live there are going to have visitors and they're just gonna, they're gonna be inviting people to come to the beach, obviously and just to put a continuous strain on the parking that's available in Ocean Park. Mr. Inman: In what ways does the design or the proposal for this project not comply with the Shore Drive Development Guidelines? Mr. Wills: Well, it says it should be within the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood, essentially and existing density which is far exceeds the existing density. And it's not in character with the rest of the neighborhood. There are no other apartment buildings in Ocean Park. It's all townhouses, duplex you know, things of that nature, single family homes. Mr. Inman: Okay. Mr. Weiner: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Mr. Wills: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Carley Swift followed by Andrea Lindeman. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Swift: Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. Thank you for hearing our comments. I would like to highlight a few points. Mr. Weiner: State your name for the record. 19 Ms. Swift: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Carley Swift. I'm an Ocean Park resident and business owner for 31 years and oppose this project in its current plan. So I'd like to reiterate and highlight a few points from Faith Christie's letter that you may have received on September 1st, who, as you probably know, has been a previous worker for the City Planning and also helped with the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and participated in the BAC. We are not opposed to development for these properties. We would like to see these properties developed with a project that complements the surrounding residential areas. And as you have indicated in your previous report, this area is identified as a suburban focus area in the Comprehensive Plan. A plan that recommends low dense, low to medium residential density and development of structures that are complimentary to surrounding uses.A proposed development of a four and a half story building with 197 units contained within it is not low to medium density, low to medium density is 12 to 18 units to the acre, which is keeping of the existing densities in the area. The proposed height and bulk of the building is not complimentary, or in keeping with the existing residential or commercial uses in the area, and the height and size of the building will overwhelm the existing residential uses.The proposed reduction of impervious areas indicated in the report looks good on paper. But until the proposed improvements, including stormwater management are made to this section of Shore Drive, there will be increased problems with drainage and flooding. This section of Shore Drive, as I'm sure you currently know, is currently under design review. And the project is expected to begin possibly in 2024, maybe 26 or 27. The Shore Drive Corridor Improvements Phase 3 were scheduled in 2019 and have not begun. So filling a site to accomplish a seven foot elevation will cause adjacent properties to flood. Thank you for your time, appreciate. Mr. Weiner: Any questions? Thank you. Ms. Swift: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Andrea Lindeman followed by Mark Faust. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Lindeman: Thank you. My name is Andrea Lindeman. And I live in Ocean Park. And I want to be brief; I just want to make two points. Because you'll hear this the very same points probably. It strikes me every time that I drive home down Shore Drive; I drive by Marlin Bay Drive where Pleasure House Point comes all the way to Shore Drive. And it strikes me the sheer length and mass of this proposed building. And then I learned something from Mr. Dao's report, it gets worse. The buildings will in fact be taller than four and four and a half stories. In order to construct the stormwater detention system, the site will need to be filled in to an elevation of seven or eight feet above sea level. And so the measuring of four or four and a half stories, will 20 start from that elevated level. This is again,just a demonstration of the massing of the building,which goes against the Shore Drive design guidelines. The other thing I would like to say so this building will dwarf its surroundings. And so what are these surroundings? This location is not a blank slate; it's in the middle of Ocean Park. And I feel like the staff report that we read kind of glosses over giving this figure of 31.77 density. This is a huge increase over other recent projects. And so I went back and I looked at some of the staff reports for two recent projects that were okayed for Shore Drive. And they use the language of the Comprehensive Plan,talking about infill development,that infill development should be at a density that's compatible with the surrounding area. So at 3746, 3744 Shore Drive came in at 14 units per acre, 3739 Shore Drive came in at 17.4 per acre. And the staff reports use the language in the Comprehensive Plan about to justify the approval saying that this had to be compatible with the surrounding area. So I just want to say that we chose Ocean Park because it had atmosphere, history and personality. And I think that this has value not only to the neighborhood, but it has value to Virginia Beach City, to preserve this kind of neighborhood. It's blinking. So I hope you will listen to the language of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Weiner: Thank you very much ma'am. Thank you for your comments, any questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Mark Faust, followed by Debbie Cohen. Mr. Weiner: Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Faust: Good afternoon. Thank you for your time ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. I'm Mark Faust. I've been a resident of Ocean Park for over 30 years during this time has grown as a vibrant neighborhood with wonderful blend of families and individuals. This proximity the natural area, the beach, local businesses, as well as being in a great school district make it a very desirable place to live. I'm strongly opposed to the proposal. I'm strongly opposed to the Marlin Bay apartment development. I'm concerned with the sheer volume of people in autos that will impact the neighborhood adversely. The traffic on Shore Drive at the proposed area is already overwhelming, including recent fatalities of drivers and pedestrians. Right on the corner of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay, a pedestrian was hit not long ago.As part of the Civic League that assists the Adopt-A-Spot that cares for Pleasure House Point, I've seen the impact of the increased use has in this fragile environment. Lots of trash, had fences and the disturbance of wildlife. Along the street there on Pleasure House Point side, it's only parking till, you can't park after dark. So everyone is supposed, if there's overflow of parking,they're not allowed to be there after dark, it is all going to be on this side of the street maybe, that's another concern. It's a wonderful place for people with families just starting out and growing, retirees and pretty much everybody in between. In my opinion, a high density project with almost 200 rental units will undoubtedly tip the balance of 21 the neighborhood in a negative and permanent way. And I urge you to say no to this project. Thank you for your time. Mr. Weiner: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Debbie Cohen, followed by Todd Goforth. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Cohen: My name is Debbie Cohen. And my husband and I live on Pendleton Avenue near Marlin Bay and Shore Drive. I've never been at a meeting like this, so little nervous. But I wanted to speak because I'm very concerned about what the proposed development will do to my neighborhood. My husband and I moved here a few years ago and we decided we wanted to live off a Shore Drive. We just fell in love with the area. We're really happy living here. We'd love walking at Pleasure House Point and in our neighborhood and going across Shore Drive to go to the Bay. It's like perfect location. But urn, main thing, I mean, I support what the others have said the Ocean Park Civic League and the other speakers have said in opposition to the project. But my main concern is definitely like there's a lot of, there's a lot of units proposed in this apartment complex. And seems like a very high density compared to what I've seen in the surrounding areas. And also, recent development I've seen on Pendleton Avenue and in my area has all been three story townhomes and much, much lower density. I'm very concerned about having so many additional units coming into that small property. The other thing is I'm looking at the Bay Area Advisory Committee, which I think understands and supports our special Shore Drive community, they voted in opposition to the project. They indicated that there needs to be a reduction in the height considering the two story townhouses adjacent on Ocean Tides Drive and also saying the project is not congruent with the existing Shore Drive corridor guidelines and Comprehensive Plan and therefore they recommended denial of the application. So you know, as others has said, I'm not against development of the property. I just hope that whatever development it will preserve and protect our community, our neighborhood community. I appreciate your time and consideration. I know a lot of people are talking and sending emails letters, and I appreciate that you consider them all. Mr. Weiner: Thank you, ma'am. Any questions? Thank you. Ms. Cohen: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Todd Goforth, followed by Todd Solomon. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. 22 Mr. Goforth: Good afternoon. My name is Todd Goforth. I live at 3850 Ocean Tides Drive. My wife and I own a townhome there.And this development would back up right to our property line. Therefore, vehemently oppose the development. I've lived in the neighborhood for over 15 years. And just to flush out what everybody's been saying, there are so many people in our neighborhood that have been there for a decade or longer. We're very tight knit community. Most people don't know we don't have an HOA, Homeowners Association. We police ourselves and take care of what we have. And if you look at the field that they're talking about, there's no trash dumpster, no you know, broken down cars or anything. Our neighborhood does a really good job of taking care of itself and policing itself. I live at the end of Ocean Tides. That is by Pleasure House Point. And that takes me back to when Pleasure House Point was under question from another developer Fineman. The Sandlers came and made a great presentation, was an elegant speaker, great presentation. But the big elephant in the room has always been density, density. I don't care how great your presentation is, who you are, how much money you have? Its density that is the problem. Now to put a personal thing out if you live in our neighborhood long enough, you know about the young woman that died crossing the intersection there, it's Shore Drive and Marlin Bay, you know about people have been hurt. Now, as I look at this, the crosswalks, if people are gonna go to the beach or going to go straight across, they don't typically go down to the crosswalks. On a Saturday, traffic is tremendous on Shore Drive, people going to the beach. And the other thing that Mark Faust brought up, he's my neighbor across the street. If you look at Marlin Bay Drive, Pleasure House Point, what a fantastic thing that the city did along with other people. During the day, you can park on Marlin Bay Drive and access Pleasure House Point. But after dark, you have to move your vehicles, there's not supposed to be anybody in Pleasure House Point after dark. Therefore, it's an excellent opportunity if you live in those apartments, you come home, you can't find a parking spot where you gonna go, you know, the cars are leaving after dark especially in the winter, there will be cars lined up and down there. I see it on the weekends, there's cars lined up and down there already on the weekends, doing what we hoped they would do accessing Pleasure House Point. And the last thing I want to say, the beach. We all live around here. We love the beach. The density at the beach has got tremendous because we had no sand replenishment. What's that have to do with? Well, you have so many people where we can't watch kids anymore. It used to be there's just one person you had an open view, now that you're so crowded, you can't see the little kids anymore. And I would hate for that to be the straw that breaks the camel's back when some kid, we can't find them, or they get injured because there's so many people in that beach. And who knows when we're getting sand replenishment with COVID going on. So that's all I have to say. Mr. Weiner: Thanks you sir, any questions? 23 Ms. Oliver: Yes, sir, and I just want to ask a question, because you're the second gentleman to mention the parking along Marlin Bay Drive in the dark and stuff, I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with the actual apartment complex because they have their own parking garage. So these people that live in the apartment building are obviously going to utilize the garage. So I'm just trying to, I'm trying to figure out. Mr. Goforth: You are correct. In a perfect world, they have planned to the hilt. And anybody that comes to visit or lives there has his parking spot in the garage or that I'm just saying typically weekends everybody that you know when you move to the beach wants to come visit you, holidays, wants to come visit you. All of a sudden you got friends that you never knew you had and if you don't have a place to park and you see all this open spot, you know you're naturally going to park there. Ms. Oliver: Okay. Mr. Goforth: So that's my comment and it already happens now for people that come in our neighborhood can't find a spot park on there after dark. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Todd Solomon, followed by Windy Crutchfield. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Mr. Solomon: Good afternoon. My name is Todd. Hope you don't mind, I'm gonna keep my mask on. I was with 68,000 crazy Hokie fans this past weekend, so for your benefit, right, I don't want to get you if I am, so I'm not gonna pass it on. My name is Todd Solomon. I live off of Shore Drive. I'm representing the Shore Drive Community Coalition. I'm here to ask for your opposition of this project. At our May 24th meeting, the Shore Drive Community Coalition voted to oppose this development as it stands, again not opposed to development per se, but the density of this development. I've been up here many, many times talking about density on Shore Drive. So this isn't something new that you're going to be hearing about. However, some of the items are specific of the reasons behind the decision points of this one that are different than others. You did hear Ocean Park Civic League did vote to oppose this. The Bayfront Advisory Commission also voted to oppose this development. In the ULI study, which was 1997 study that kicked off all the Shore Drive Corridor plans, which you all know about, it does state specifically in there that the communities of Ocean Park and Chicks Beach, where zoning allows a transition from single family to duplex or higher density units, attention should be paid to the results of this intensification. The density of new developments in this area should not overwhelm these two communities, which have made fine homes and neighborhoods for their residents. Again, density, overwhelming, these 24 questions, these words, are used throughout. Staff has shown you on the properties all adjacent to this. If you've noticed they all were B-2s at one time rezoned, removal of commercial property to add higher density developments. All the B-2s along Shore Drive are going away. I understand it's mentioned in here about over commercial, don't over commercialize Shore Drive, I don't think they really meant remove all commercial property and make it all residential. I may have missed that in that discussion. Again per staff, the Comprehensive Plan recommends and you heard it before, future residential uses should strive to achieve the lowest reasonable density to be compatible with existing residential densities. There's no way that this is compatible with the adjacent densities. The largest density right across the street north of Shore Drive, A-18. And the last one I found most interesting, the City Code states for apartment zoning, that it is not the intention to create additional A-24 or A-36 districts. This is an A-24, actually is 31 and a half,something like that. But anyways, if you follow your apartment district code, you shouldn't go above A-18, which is similar to the zoning across the street. So worst case, knock it down to A-18, reduce the densities, sounds like everybody else would be happy with that, reduce the size. If you want to see a structure that's going to be very similar to this, Pine Well Station up on East Ocean View. Look at that, that's 145 units. Massiveness of that does not fit that neighborhood. Mr. Weiner: Thank you, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk: Windy Crutchfield, followed by Amanda Logsdon. Ms. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Crutchfield: Thank you. My name is Windy Crutchfield. And I wanted to say thank you for the opportunity to share my observations and raise my concerns for this project. I have owned a townhouse adjacent to the property since 1992. It's on Ocean Tides Drive. And I wanted to refer to the Comprehensive Plan in my remarks, it's specified in the plans that the council should or the city should advance the interests of the larger community rather than simply responding to the needs of individual property owners. And you can see that the neighborhood has been very unified in their objection to the current proposal. Being that I've had the house across the—town house across the street since 92. I do know that there is a dog park that's there. It's been used by the Mariners Landing neighborhood, it's maintained as a previous speaker was saying, we are very good about maintaining our properties around here. We take care of it, mow it, trim the trees, supply dog waste bags and take the trash to the street weekly. Neighbors used it to bring their dogs out for a stretch when they get home from work. And also neighbors use this path as a crosswalk to or path to the beach. So they actually can see where they would go right through the paper street of Ocean Tides to Shore Drive and then use the crosswalk. So by eliminating that, you are actually taking a public use and changing it to strictly private use. The Comprehensive Plan says that the city should preserve or further 25 enhance the existing residential areas and amenities and Marlin Bay apartments does exactly the opposite. Being a witness to several storm events, there is actually no flooding or drainage issues there. The developer continued to say that the area is 100% impervious. But that is not true and I submitted pictures that show how much green space is there and there's never been a flooding problem there. Also that the development will more than double the density of any parcel in Ocean Park, we've got the expansion of Windsong Apartments, Westminster Canterbury, Point Overture isn't at full capacity yet. So we have all of that to add to the problems with traffic on Shore Drive. So I just wanted to wrap it up by saying it's, this is a stark contrast with the City of Virginia Beach's Comprehensive Plan, and the City's goal should be to protect the vitality of this area. Mr. Weiner: Thank you for your comments, any questions?Thank you. Ms. Crutchfield: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Amanda Logsdon, followed by Matt Thompson. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Logsdon: Thank you. As an Ocean Park resident and former real estate developer. Mr. Weiner: Ma'am, can you state your name for the record, please? Ms. Logsdon: I will. For the record, my name is Amanda Logsdon. As an Ocean Part resident and a former real estate developer, I think I can offer a unique perspective to the Planning Commission. And I appreciate your time this afternoon. I was born and raised in Virginia Beach and grew up as a devoted resident in service to the community. After graduating from high school and university over 20 years ago, I moved to Northern Virginia to pursue a career in commercial real estate as both a construction and development manager. I have built over 2.5 million square feet of mixed use real estate, studied planning and place making with the Urban Land Institute,and most recently developed and operated a luxury apartment and mixed use building in Arlington, Virginia with 591 apartment units that both complements and supports the surrounding neighborhood. Last year, I moved to Virginia Beach and currently work as a general contractor in the federal space, both at Norfolk Naval and at Little Creek. In April of this year, I purchased a single family home at the corner of Powhatan Avenue and West Stratford; thereby both working and living along the Shore Drive corridor. I believe in smart,strategic, sustainable urban growth. But as currently designed, I cannot support the Marlin Bay development for the following three reasons, parking, egress and storm infrastructure. Parking, currently planned density and parking ratio are not sufficient to support the future apartment residents and their guests. The Three Ships development across the street at a much lower density cannot support the current residents and already 26 overflow onto West Stratford and the surrounding streets. Coupled with public visitors and to the Bay and the Brock Center, the neighborhoods on both sides of Shore Drive will not be able to withstand the added cars from Marlin Bay. This will create more pedestrian safety issues within the neighborhoods and across an already dangerous Shore Drive much like the issues at Marina Shores and Great Neck Road. Egress,the proposed Ocean Tides Drive as egress for the apartments in addition to the Marlin Bay Drive. This intersection is already dangerous and without a streetlight and crosswalks will add to the congestion and danger at Shore Drive. Egress should be limited to entering only at Marlin Bay Drive, or a streetlight should be added. My home for storm infrastructure is one of the original houses to Ocean Park and sits at the lowest elevation in relation to the new development at West Stratford. I think that stormwater tension vaults at Marlin Bay should be increased to support the community's need. In summary, I think that the proposed density is not commensurate with the real residential area, at this portion of Shore Drive. And while I don't oppose multifamily mixed use development, I would ask that the Planning Commission and the stakeholders continue to work with the neighborhoods on these concerns to create a successful project. Mr. Weiner: Thank you for your comments. Any questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Matt Thompson. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Mr. Thompson: Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. As for the record, I'm Matt Thompson. I raised my family in Ocean Park with my two daughters and one is a Hokie and one is a Duke now. I can just tell you since 2014, when I moved to Ocean Park, it doesn't resemble the same neighborhood. It's disheartening to see the number one the traffic that resembles more like Northern Virginia than Virginia Beach. And that's not an inconvenience to me. I can choose where I live. But it's dangerous. And you have seen as one of my neighbors pointed out very acutely, there's been an uptick in accidents. And it's become very dangerous. In addition to that, the development of these massive structures, and I would point to, and I'm not sure the name of it, the one east of the Lesner Bridge, which, after the Lesner was rebuilt, and put in there has blocked, it takes away from the aesthetic beauty of the area. So it's a situation where we're trying to get our cake and eat it too. And so, I also oppose this not because I oppose this property being developed, but because I oppose it based on the way it is written and being presented. One, it does not meet the definition of rezoning on a conditional permit. Nowhere in this proposal, can I see any criteria that meets mixed use, and as my neighbors have pointed out,the density. The density is a massive issue, and so to your question Ms. Oliver about the Marlin Bay Drive,when everybody brings their friends over for Floatopia, that's where they're going to park. And that's a problem for our neighborhood. So, with that being said, we are certainly open, we understand that this is valuable 27 property, but we would like done in a responsible manner. So thank you for your time. Mr. Weiner: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk: Are Scott or Gaynelle Ayres here, or Phil Rous? Mr. Weiner: Please come up, sir. Please. And what was your name? I am sorry. Mr. Ayres: My name is Scott Ayres. Yeah, I got an email reply. Good afternoon. My name is Scott Ayres, and I've lived in Ocean Park for 35 years. First of all, I would like to thank you for your service. Having volunteered to serve on the Bayfront Advisory Commission for over 20 years, I understand the commitment you make to promote the city's growth to benefit the residents and our future generations. A number of years ago with the assistance of the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office and assisted, we assisted City Council in formulating a plan for the future development of Shore Drive, as was one of the key recommendations of the City funded ULI study. The Shore Drive Corridor Plan and its designed guidelines were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The BAC was also assisted with this process by their liaisons from the Planning Commission and City Council. With their assistance, the plan and the guidelines were approved and made part of the City Comprehensive Plan. With the plan that BAC and the Planning Department now had a mechanism to guide the City's vision for the Shore Drive Corridor and enforceable code to follow, not one to be bent to fit the applicant's needs. Following the design guidelines meant consistent application of the principles for growth within the most densely populated corridor in the city. It is my opinion that the application you're acting on today is in noncompliance with the in place ordinances that were designed to govern growth within the Shore Drive Corridor, and specifically Ocean Park. With the exception of plan review by BAC, there has been no attempt by the applicant to sit down with the Ocean Park community and in good faith discuss what kind of project might benefit the community and the applicant. The applicant's answer to density has been if we don't get this many units to the project, it's not economically feasible. I asked the question whose problem is that? Certainly not the residents of Ocean Park. Ocean Park is not anti-growth or anti-development. The fact is the community looks forward to the development of the property but not as presented today by the applicant. Another fact is that directly across the street from the applicant's property sits a mixed use property. It's the only mixed use property in Ocean Park built and approved under the current guidelines. At first, it did not have the community support. But with the input from the community, Planning staff and the developer the design guidelines were followed. And the community supported the project. The developer followed the Shore Drive guidelines for mixed use. Why shouldn't today's applicant do the same? In my opinion, today's application under the mixed use guideline is a ruse. Virginia Beach, although a very young city... 28 Mr. Weiner: Thank you for your comments, any questions?Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk: Mr. Chair, I believe that's the last of the in person speakers. We have two WebEx speakers remaining. Is there,what's your name?Oh, come on up. Sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize. Mr. Weiner: It's fine, no problem. Welcome, ma'am. Ms. Ayres: Good afternoon. My name is Gaynelle Ayres. I've lived at 3780 Jefferson Boulevard. As my parents did, as my grandparents did, so we've been there for almost 100 years. Ocean Park in the 50s didn't have running water.We didn't have city water. We did get, we had dirt streets, but no public services, fast forward to 2021. We now have city water, but an antiquated sewer and storm sewer system, along with narrow streets, that during an emergency, fire trucks, ambulances have a very difficult time getting by and that's on both sides of Shore Drive, not just on the Bay side. The Bayfront Advisory Committee did a study in 2011 and found that that corridor, Shore Drive Corridor had the highest residential real estate tax assessment per acre in the city. Interestingly, the least public school students per acre that's a big revenue winner for the city. Ocean Park plated in 1912 is one of Virginia Beach's, historic neighborhoods, and one the city should be very proud of. Ocean Park deserves better than the proposed Marlin Bay. On August 3rd 2021, City Public Works issued an update on Phase Four of the Shore Drive Improvement Project. The update states that the existing Ocean Park stormwater system is inadequate. You can ask the project manager Bill Purcell, who says Ocean Park needs major stormwater upgrades. The report states Phase Four will start and maybe start in 2026 and be completed by 2029. Phase Three time schedule, if Phase Three time schedule is any measure of accuracy, Ocean Park will be lucky to see the completed improvements this decade. Without completion of Phase Four, Ocean Park could be devastated by a storm like Ida that we just had. I remember being carried out on an army dock during the Ash Wednesday storm when our house fell in the water. I don't wish this on my family or anyone else's. Marlin Bay would nearly double the number of Ocean Park residents on the south side of Shore Drive and put unbearable strain on the existing Ocean Park infrastructure. And that could easily accelerate the failure during a major storm. This is something we all have to address. Consideration of the project at best should be deferred until the project until Phase Four is complete and environmental study is done. Mr. Weiner: Ma'am, thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any questions? Ms. Klein: No, but I love your glasses. They look good. Ms. Ayres: Oh thank you. 29 Madam Clerk: Is Phil Rous here, R-O-U-S? Okay Terry Browning. Mr. Weiner: Good afternoon. Mr. Browning: Good afternoon. My name is Terry Browning. I am the owner of 3829 Shore Drive along with my two brothers. My parents purchased this property nearly 50 years ago to run our family boat business. We've been in business since 1955 and 20 years into business, we moved to Virginia Beach, we saw the opportunity for growth. Our customer base was here in Virginia Beach, and we could expand our business. We've been operating in Shore Drive. We bought this property as it was look like a viable financial move for my family; we were able to afford this property by selling boats and being in the boat business. We've owned this property; we tragically lost my parents in 1999 in a plane crash. My brothers and I have had to run this business since then. And we found it very difficult now in going forward to support three families out of the boat business. My father and mother bought this property knowing that was going to be our future going forward. And we have lived through all the zoning changes and changes in the City of Virginia Beach.We have owned a beach cottage on Surry Road since 1951. Our family has spent summers in Ocean Park. And as you can imagine, Ocean Park looks quite a bit different now than it did in 1951. But as with everything, we know that things change, laws change, and we move forward, us as property owners tried to deal with these changes and conform to what's asked of us to develop our properties. We're at a point in our property now that we need to move forward and go from where we are now and develop this and try to pick out something on this property that we felt was good for our family and our future, our children, our grandchildren, and was good for the Ocean Park community. We have many choices of many things, we could do on our property. My property is zoned B-2. And I can do quite a few things on that. And soul searching and doing research on this, we felt like this was the best solution we could to go forward to be financially viable for us. I'm just a land leaser in this deal. I'm not the builder. But this is going to take care of my family in future years. And I know people are opposed to change, but change happens.And I want to thank you for consideration of this. And I feel like we need to move this project forward. I think this is the best we can do with this property. And with the rules they change now and the infrastructure needed, it does take this to build to be viable, financially viable. Mr. Weiner: Thank you sir, any questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Mr. Chairman, I believe that was our last in person speaker. We have two WebEx speakers remaining, Kim Mayo, followed by Martin Thomas, Ms. Mayo, if you would please wait two to three seconds and then state your name and begin your comments, please. 30 Ms. Mayo: I'm Kim Mayo, and I oppose this. I'm not personally against all development or change. I've lived many places including our Shore Drive Corridor for over 25 years. But I am against over development and its unintended consequences. Some on our Planning Commission unfortunately have a reputation for favoring big developer interests over citizens, especially in our neighborhood. Let's let McCleskey build under by right zoning. It would have far fewer negative consequences on our community. Those negative impacts include burdens on police given the current staffing shortages, increased pollution, noise, infrastructure challenges more traffic and impacts on our quality of life. Per my expertise as a conservationist, often the cost of development outweigh the tax benefits and I'm talking about actual dollar costs here, not just hidden costs. After Windsong and Tower of Westminster people are fed up. Residents having their sunlight blocked and rights infringed upon. My dear friend, a retired local college professor had a multi-story condo built right next to her property. Her charming cottage was literally engulfed by it. After 40 years of living there live oaks were ripped down, birds she loved so much disappeared. We can hardly turn our car around in her driveway anymore.And I truly believe the stress from this contributed to her stroke. That's what's happening. Her story needs to be heard. Who is protecting the rights of existing property owners.Specific to Marlin Bay apartments, I agree with civic leaders of Ocean Park and many surrounding communities and this is not in keeping with our master plan regarding density for Pleasure House Point or the Shore Drive overlay. Four and a half story buildings and 197 units is not low to medium density which is 12 to 18 units per acre and in keeping with the surrounding area. The proposed height and giant building size is not complimentary or in keeping with residential or commercial uses in the area. The height and size will overwhelm existing residential uses. Expert testimony from one of your own former planning council members as we heard shows the property across the street first came in as a four story building. The developer was asked to redesign the project to be consistent with the surrounding area, Staff cannot support the proposal. Why then should McCleskey get special treatment? Regarding Pleasure House Point, how would this high density development in a flood zone be complimentary? Our tax dollars have made a huge investment protecting this open space gem. The master plan reads quote "ensure that any development is complimentary with regard to both design and land use to our natural resource and open space amenity Pleasure House Point." It clearly is not. Based on my expertise on open space the idea of building high density developments is not in keeping with the surrounding area that about conservation land without proper environmental impact studies is not a best practice. Many who use Pleasure House Point have dogs and more fences with strain and further pollute our Lynnhaven River. I like seeing stars and not bright lights. Many other cities require the mitigation of light pollution on new development. Madam Clerk: Our final speaker today is Martin Thomas. Mr. Thomas, if you would wait two to three seconds and then please state your name and begin your comments. 31 Mr. Thomas: Hello. My name is Martin Thomas. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I appreciate all your service. I know what its like to serve on a public body. I know the challenges, often thankless; I've been a resident of Ocean Park for 60 years. live on Roanoke Avenue. I'm not going to go over. I'm an attorney. And luckily everybody else has already said most of what I wanted to say so you don't get bored by another attorney. But I would like to comment on a couple of the aspects. As Mr. Solomon pointed out, you know,the Bayfront Area is unique in and of itself. But the ULI study singled out Ocean Park is being a different character than the rest of the Bayfront community.And it recommended that we not engulf it by having multi use, I mean multifamily projects that are incongruent with the duplexes and single family homes that primarily occupy Ocean Park. One of the members of the Commission mentioned that there was a lot of abandoned retail in the area. That doesn't exist on the west side of Lesner Bridge, which is Ocean Park. There are no abandoned retail places along there. And quite frankly, I'm not opposed to development. And I've wanted that lot developed for a long time. But I like to see real mixed use development. I'm not opposed to apartments either. But this is not a real mixed use development. This is tacking on a boat existing business to call it mixed use. It's not adding any retail. Why not have a mixed use on this lot, have some retail with some other parcels above it. One of the reasons that it's been difficult to develop retail along Shore Drive is because the commercial lots are so shallow. This is a deep lot that would allow for a lot of different uses in commercial vein, including mixed use. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk. I don't want to go over what everybody else has said although I agree with most of what they said. I just urge you to consider the ULI study and consider the impact on this neighborhood which is a very unique neighborhood. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk: No more speakers. Mr. Weiner: No more speakers. All right. Ms. Murphy. Ms. Murphy: Good afternoon. Thank you all for your patience. I'll be very brief. I just wanted to address a few issues. Specifically, the B-4 SD District which is the one that we have proposed the conditional rezoning to specifically allows for density of 36 units per acre.What we've proposed is just over 31 units per acre. I know speakers have spoken about the apartment districts and infill in the apartment districts. This B-4 SD District is unique to Shore Drive and it was part of the Shore Drive Overlay and it provides for a mix of uses. I know a lot of folks when they think mix of uses they think Town Center and that's vertical. The Shore Drive mix of uses is really meant to be horizontal. If you look at again The Pearl,you've got the Surf Rider and you've got the apartments. It's not all in the same - in the same building. So this is conceptually very different than the Town Center type area.With regard to parking, there are 390 parking spaces, 358 are multifamily, 32 are for the 12,000 square foot buildings. The applicant could have because this is mixed use asked for a 32 shared parking arrangement. Obviously, the commercial use times especially with the boat sales is going to be different from the residential. So there will more likely than not be an excess of residential spaces because the residents are parking when the businesses are not necessarily open. What I've heard a lot about is parking on Marlin Bay Drive. If you look at the city's website, Pleasure House Point is 118 acres of city open space. It's part of the Parks and Recreation Department. And it's public for the whole city. The website says the parking is on Marlin Bay Drive because frankly, there is no other way to get into Pleasure House Point. Beaches on Shore Drive, which, you know, I live in the city, I frequent them just as much as anybody else. They are public beaches, and you know, where you have public beaches, it sounds like you're going to have parking issues. My family was in town last weekend; we left for the beach at 12:30. I told them that was too late and we couldn't find a parking space. So we went back home and went to the pool. You know, those challenges it sounds like are challenges that have to do with the public spaces, more so than what we're proposing. Obviously, this is going to be self parked; we're going to have more than enough parking on-site for the both of the uses. A lot of has been made of the character of the neighborhood, the fact that this is, you know, a residential neighborhood. This specific area because it's right along Shore Drive is in what the city staff report called the mixed zone. And the staff report finds that the density and use is appropriate in the mixed zone as a transition. So where you have a highly travelled, you know, major arterial roadway, you're going to want some sort of a transition back to the residential, the more single family residential uses. This type of use is a transitional use that would be appropriate. There was an Ocean Tides Drive and I think Ric Lowman came up for this as well. The part that we're closing is, is here, it's not used by anybody for vehicular access other than the boat facilities, I think she had a concern that this— somehow this was being closed. This is not being closed at all. It's just within the parcel itself. And as the viewers who are required to go out and look at the request for a street closure have indicated there are other ways to get across more specifically the signalized intersection where folks can walk across and nobody can actually use a car now, other than the folks entering the Browning and Lynnhaven Marine facilities. What they were looking at, I think, was people who might be walking to get across Shore Drive. But again, they found there wouldn't be a public inconvenience because you've got the signalized intersection to get folks across. The purpose of the landscaping, which is a Category Four landscape buffer, it will be 15-feet wide, the trees will grow up to 30 feet; you've got bushes that are grow up to five feet. The intention of that is to provide that buffer and really they'll just because of the view shed and the line of sight they'll screen a lot of the duplexes that back up there. There were comments made about height, I'm not sure where they came from. The staff report indicates that the section facing the intersection is three stories, which was a major reduction in height and in density from what was originally proposed. But the four and a half stories where that comes from is the parking garage. So, stories in a parking garage don't have the same height as stories in a residential building. So, the four stories in those wings of the 33 building will actually shield the parking garage. So, we're talking four and a half stories that's really kind of a misnomer. As far as maintenance as was mentioned, the Terry Peterson Companies and the McCleskey and Browning families are long term owners. They're not going to be selling this project. They will maintain it the way they've maintained all of their projects and properties in the city. And in some cases as was mentioned, they don't have a mandatory civic league or a property owners association. The maintenance of this facility will be top notch. I mean you can't say that for every area of the city where you don't have a commercial entity doing the maintenance. Proffer number four, there was a mention of lighting, proffer number four details that lighting on the property will be limited to that which is necessary for security and safety purposes, and it will comply with applicable law. So it'll be shielded to prevent glare and spill over onto other properties. This really is as we've heard, and as the staff report indicates the highest and best use for this property, it will be a tremendous upgrade, and really provide a gateway feature into Shore Drive and into the city itself. I'm happy to answer any questions. I think Ric Lowman can address traffic, but I think the traffic study and the professional review of that have indicated that there will not be a negative impact on traffic in the corridor and at the intersections. Mr. Weiner: Any questions to Ms. Murphy? Ms. Oliver: Ms. Murphy, I just want to clarify because you touched —when you first started on Marlin Bay, there's a new median break for the entrance to the parking garage. Further down on Ocean Tide, there is a median break. You're not closing that. Ms. Murphy: No, we're not doing anything with that section of Ocean Tides at all. Ms. Oliver: Just wanted to be very clear on that. Thank you. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Jack? Mr. Wall: So where are the dumpsters going to be located? Ms. Murphy: The dumpsters will actually be at the rear, John do you want to address? Mr. Peterson: They're proposed in this area. Mr. Wall: Okay. Yeah. Simple enough, I mean, that's my, the follow up. I mean, your dumpsters when they, when they slam those things down. you can hear it a half a mile away. Mr. Weiner: While you're up here real quick. Nobody's really touched base on what's going on in Shore Drive part of the apartments to Shore Drive, the sidewalk and everything, what's happening up there? 34 Mr. Peterson: You are asking me? Mr. Weiner: Yeah, sorry. Mr. Peterson: The first of all as you know, that area is drained by ditches. And so we're going to —we would be proposing to do curb and gutter. And then there would be a verge from that curb to the proposed 10 foot wide multi use path, which is again called for all the way the whole length of Shore Drive. And then there would be an additional setback to what would be the entrances out of the first floor apartments, so bit of a unique feature to try to create a more residential feel on the street,where there would be stoops that would actually exit out of the apartments down onto that multi use path. And then there's an additional main entrance way right where the pointer is, which is kind of another entrance into the entire building. And then, of course, landscaping and trees and everything that don't exist today. Mr. Weiner: Yes sir. Mr. Inman: And where are the other entrances to the building besides the one you just pointed to off of Shore Drive? Mr. Peterson: This is the main entrance right here. You come in here and there'll be a leasing office. And that's a direct line through to the community center, recreation center. You also have, you have garage entrances, here and here. So access to the interior of the building will be secure. Mr. Inman: And on the buffer that's between the lower wing of the building and the houses that backup to that, would you describe what that buffering is going to consist of? Mr. Peterson: As I mentioned before, I don't have specific species, our goal is, of course, to have them be as tall as they can be for screening purposes,just to clarify, the 15 feet is the width of that easement. I mean, I'm sorry, the setback and so it's a 15-foot width and then we would plant as taller trees as was practical in that 15 foot width. Mr. Inman: Yeah, the proffer looks like it's or the condition we have in here, trees have been permitted to grow and maintain the minimum height of 20 feet and a shrubs height of 5 feet. Mr. Wall: About to tack on to that, the impacts to the residents sunlight, can you? Mr. Peterson: So this is south, instead the sun essentially goes like this. And these shadows are a bit of an improperly placed. This would be, I am not sure when these would actually, the shadows would actually go this way. 35 Mr. Wall: So the sun's not going to, it wouldn't impact any kind of height of trees or anything wouldn't impact the backyards in terms of sunlight hitting there, if somebody wants to grow something back there, their tomato, you know, something, would you say that this is not impactful to anything that they currently have in terms of sunlight hitting right that? Mr. Peterson: The intent is that,you know, again, shadows go this way.We haven't studied every possible sun angle, but the general idea is that the sun is in the south and shines. Mr. Wall: Right,any impact would probably be in the after late afternoon, if there is an impact. Okay. Building of the site 79 feet, up to elevation 79, which is the site in general or at least, but the storm, so you have to put the stormwater management under? Where's the stormwater draining?What's the general direction of,where it's gonna go once it leaves the site? Mr. Peterson: The outfall is this direction. It's an existing outfall that goes into the,there's actually a BMP inside of Pleasure House Point. And then it discharges into the, into the creek from there. Mr. Wall: So where would the stormwater management facilities? I know they're underground? But I mean, where are they going to be placed? Mr. Peterson: They are all throughout, all the areas that you see. Mr. Wall: So under the green space, under the parking lot. Mr. Peterson: Yes. Mr. Wall: So they are going to be down there. So to install those the sites may even have to be even more so to get, I don't know how tall they're going to one foot, two foot, three foot and you have cover over those. They're in the grounds of sandy soil, so some of that may infiltrate, what I'm getting at is the finished floor elevation, it may be higher than what, 7 to 9, do you know the finished floor elevation at this time? Mr. Peterson: I don't have a specific finished floor elevation, but I don't think it's, I mean, we're certainly not going to build it up any higher than we have to, I mean, it's going to be what's required in order to meet the code. Mr. Wall: Right to drain the site,which and then may bring it up a little bit just for architectural look of the site, okay. Okay. Ms. Murphy: The volume will be brought underground. I mean, currently the water is going north to Shore Drive where there's a drainage and Marlin Bay Drive to the south. And there's no stormwater management at all on the property. 36 Mr. Wall: Right. And it was mentioned, I think somebody said it was, you know, the whole site and probably but not really, I think what's already PD-H1, I think that's not impervious. So, what currently is the Browning property of course is... Mr. Peterson: By the definition of the city stormwater regulations, it is impervious. Mr. Wall: Gravel is impervious for water quality. Okay. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? No questions? All right, thank you very much. We will close this out and look at Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond: Mr. Weiner. Mr. Weiner: This is your neck of the woods. Mr. Redmond: It is my neck of the woods. I rode my bike up Shore Drive when I was... Ms. Eisenberg: Would you like to care to make... Mr. Redmond:Oh,yes,Thank you for the reminder. I have a disclosure to make.There is a broker in my office; I work in real estate broker, as a real estate broker. There is a broker in my office who does some work for McCleskey and Associates, has a listing that sell some land for them. I do not — I don't participate in any way and that haven't received any remuneration ever from McCleskey or from Terry Peterson or from Mr. Browning or anybody else don't now, so it doesn't affect me in any way. And conflict of interest laws, of course, define me as just as you all would or any other, you know, broker in the real estate business.So, but I wanted to be sure to disclose that and I will be voting and commenting on the application, thank you Tori. Mr. Inman: I have a disclosure to make also,as an attorney I have represented before,another project Terry Peterson, I'm not representing him currently and we don't — I don't have any financial interest in the project, in this project and or any other project they've done so I feel free to vote. Mr. Weiner: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Redmond: I was riding my bike up Shore Drive when I was about 14 years old, wasn't old enough to drive that would have been 79, 1979. So I'm well familiar with this corridor. And I want to be clear that we're talking about the entire Shore Drive corridor, and the Shore Drive plan and the Shore Drive overlay, and the Shore Drive, all of these things that I think we have to view in the broader Shore Drive context, and not merely in terms of Ocean Park. For the life of me, I don't understand how this is going to negatively impact Ocean Park. But I still think we 37 have to recognize that there's more than just this, you know, then just this one little pocket at the corner of Marlin Bay, and Shore Drive, there are a number of things about this application that I think are very attractive, you can stare at that slide and see there's a heck of a lot more green on it than exists today. There's more turf, there's more shrubs, there's more trees, there's stormwater that's going to be installed that doesn't exist today. At the same time, it reduces the impervious cover on site. So it's certainly a much greener application, the infrastructure is clearly an improvement.We don't have any infrastructure in terms of stormwater there today. The architecture, I think, is extremely attractive. I have driven the site in the context of this application five times specifically, including again, yesterday afternoon, and, you know, tried to make myself get lost is very hard, because I'm very familiar with this place, but just sort of noodled around back in the neighborhoods and then turned around and went all the way up to Great Neck Road and came back and just looked at the entire corridor. From this site, I can throw a rock and hit Bay Vista, Chesapeake House, 3556 on the Bay. If I go west, I'm going to run into the shopping center that has the Kroger in it and the four-story Victoria Place and then another small shopping center. On either side of this site are multi story buildings. All throughout the Shore Drive corridor are multi story buildings.Within Ocean Park itself, single family and duplex residences that are three stories themselves. And what's proposed for that corner is three stories. I don't understand. That reminds me of an old joke, How many Virginians does it take to change a light bulb?Three, takes three, takes one to change the bulb and two to admire the old one. And I just don't know what it is we're admiring about this site that would cause us to see that as a negative impact over the broken down storage yard,the building that's got the water stains on it, you know, it's got some of the material peeling off it that I saw yesterday.The streets that are to be closed, aren't streets,they are two dead ends. Somebody said they use it as a dog park. Alright, well, they're not streets, there's no reason to keep open streets that serve no useful public purpose for which we should maintain. And in fact, any redevelopment of that site, those two dead ends are going to be closed, you put a warehouse there, and they're going to need to close those streets. So in any event, you know, if I thought this would in some way damage the Shore Drive corridor, I would be a first guy saying, forget it. And in fact, that's the first thing I said to the applicant, when I first met with them seems like a million years ago that we've been talking about this is. You know, this has to be very high end. And from what I see from the elevations, from the landscape plan, from the infrastructure that's added and frankly, the appropriateness of the building height in the context of this broader character, that's what I'm talking about. I just don't see how this is anything, but a positive addition to the Shore Drive Corridor. And something I think in the end will be proud of. So I'm certainly going to support the application. I'll be happy to make a motion at the time. And then I'll just sit back and let y'all do your thing too. Thank you everyone who came here today. I had a lot of conversations with an awful lot of folks for many, many, many months.And as I said, I've been over there a million times now but I've known 38 it very frankly since I was a boy. So I didn't need to learn a whole lot more. Thank you, Mr. Weiner. Mr. Weiner: Thank you, sir. Yes, Ms. Klein. Ms. Klein: I took everything into account and wrote my thoughts down. So I want to start by saying every developer I've seen from the seat has said that their parking plans exceed the requirements and they've never had a problem with parking. I challenge them to talk directly to their residents. There is never enough parking. I'm very familiar with the housing shortage in my role, density changes are inevitable and cities across the country are revising their zoning guidelines to accommodate this need. In this particular case, however, I take issue most with the type of apartments proposed. If I had known at 18, that how the salary of a social worker translates into the real world I may have reconsidered. The average hourly wage to afford a two bedroom rental in Virginia is slightly under $25 an hour, and it took me more than a few years to reach that number after graduation. I'm a Master's educated professional and I make well below the median household income in Virginia Beach, which is 98,000 as of 2019. The home I purchased in 2018 cost less than half of the median home price of$324,000. My son and I live with our two dogs in a 1000 square foot home with two bedrooms, one and a half bathrooms and a mortgage of about $800 per month. Owning a home is exhausting, and I miss apartment life. And a comparably sized dog friendly apartment in the city starts at $1300, an increase of over 60%. If I'm willing to forego air conditioning that number drops to $1200, renting in Virginia Beach without significant lifestyle changes is fiscally impossible for me. And we are pricing out the younger workforce, we are trying to attract. So for that reason, I will be voting no. Mr. Weiner: Thank you. Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham: I appreciate everybody that came in opposition. I've talked to a number of you and, you know, I live in, I've said it before, and I'm sure you guys are tired of hearing it, but I live in the Great Neck - Shore Drive area I drive by this property, you know, probably five times a week. I grew up in Virginia Beach, probably driven by this property, you know, 1000s of times. I agree with Mr. Redmond, you know, sometimes you kind of look at how it, you know, does it check all the boxes and you look at traffic. And to kind of go over this, this is a reduction in the traffic that could be created by the current zoning. If you were to build what the current zoning allows, you would create more traffic than what this project would create. The project is not going to promote neighborhood traffic. I mean it's right at a corner. People are going to drive in; they're going to go into their parking garage. I don't see them parking in the neighborhood or really driving through the neighborhood. You know, Mr. Redmond talked about the height. I'm not going to go into that. Yeah, some people have mentioned other uses for the property, retail and commercial restaurant.And it said that there's not any vacant buildings on this side 39 of the Lesner Bridge. Well, there may not be right now but there have been in the past and we all know that. At one point, there was a Harris Teeter that was going to go on the other corner of Marlin Bay. I know because I was the developer, I was working with Harris Teeter. And Harris Teeter turned the site down. Because when you in the world of commercial real estate, you look at demographic rings and when you do the demographic rings here, you pick up water, you pick up marsh; you don't pick up that many people. I know. It seems like a lot of people but in the world of commercial real estate, there's not enough demand to say we're going to do all commercial on the site. Matter of fact, one of the other planning commissioners brought up the dumpster. If you put restaurants there, you are going to hear dumpsters, a lot more dumpsters that you're going to hear from an apartment complex. I do think that that other building that's left I think that it has probably a better chance of getting developed or redeveloped or modified for a retail use. If we have this captured audience of apartments right there. You know, I think I view the site is as almost a gateway into the Shore Drive Great Neck Area. It is a very, I mean you look at these, these renderings. This is a very attractive project. Like I said, checks all the boxes. I don't think stormwater is going to be an issue. It's actually they're improving the stormwater. I know that change is sometimes uncomfortable but I do think that Shore Drive, this area, it needs to evolve. This is a great use, it's the highest and best use for the site. And I have talked to a lot of people in your neighborhood that are for and against it. And yeah, there's a lot of people in Ocean Park against it. I have tried to find a reason to not want to see this project approved. I've really tried it, you may not believe that, but I have tried. I'm going to support this project. I think it's great for the Shore Drive corridor. I think it checks all the boxes. I think it's gonna be an improvement. And so anyway, that's I am going to be supporting this project. Mr. Weiner: Thank you Mr. Graham. Who is next? Ms. Oliver: Is Ric still here? Mr. Weiner: Ric Lowman, are you still here?There he is, come on up here, Ric. Ms. Oliver: I hate for you to sit here all day and not, you know, get a chance, somebody asked you a question. Mr. Lowman: Ric Lowman, city traffic engineer, licensed professional engineer. Ms. Oliver: So Ric, just for clarification, on Shore Drive, because there's a lot of conversation about traffic and not traffic. And this morning and in formal, we talked about if by right, we use that piece of property for drive through restaurant and how much traffic that would generate and how much traffic that the apartment complex would generate, basically, the trips in and out for people going to work, and things like that,just for clarity, and how, what this road does. Because I thought what you did 40 this morning was a great presentation. Actually, I thought I knew a lot about Shore Drive till you did that. And I think it would be just good, just sort of put it on the record a little bit. Mr. Lowman: Sure. So the first part of that was the by right, the by right land use and looking at the size of the site, you know, they could put a fast food restaurant on the site by right. With that, it would generate I think, I don't remember the exact numbers. But when you add that together with what they could put on the other part of the site, that zoned, the other part that's not zoned B-2, you could generate about 2000 trips a day. Most of that being the fast food with a drive through. With the apartments, they could generate about 1448 trips per day. So that would mean that there would be a net decrease in trips if this lot was developed with apartment versus a fast food restaurant. So I mean, that's just a fact. As David Bradley mentioned, you know, the trips are going to be different, because the apartments will generate more traffic in the afternoon. When people come home, and it'll generate some traffic in the morning, when people leave for work. Apartments are much different than single family homes, though. So apartments generate much less traffic than single family homes. So all these uses are different, but in the end, the traffic study considered all that. And the traffic study showed that, you know, this development is going to generate 30% less traffic per day, then the by right uses and I agree with that. Ms. Oliver: And then maybe expand a little bit about the type of road that Shore Drive is? Mr. Lowman: Sure, Shore Drive is considered a major arterial, urban arterial in the City of Virginia Beach. I mean, it's one of the, it's really the only,you know, East West streets, you know, north of Virginia Beach Boulevard. And as such it carries a lot of traffic. The one difference between Shore Drive and independence Boulevard is that Shore Drive doesn't have any major intersecting intersections, so it can carry a lot more traffic; your delays on roadways, your major roadways are going to be at your signalized intersections. Independence Boulevard has many signalized intersections that carry a lot of traffic like Rosemont, Independence Boulevard, Lynnhaven. Shore Drive doesn't have many of those big intersections. The only ones that really has is Great Neck and Pleasure House. As we discussed First Court is not that big but it's one of the, it's one of the bigger ones on Shore Drive in that stretch. So Shore Drive has the capability of carrying a lot more traffic because the city can give much more green time to Shore Drive. It doesn't have to give traffic you know, doesn't have to give green time to the side streets because the side streets are very, very light. And Marlin Bay is one of those, you know, light side streets, Marlin Bay slash Shady Oaks. So in that way, you know, Shore Drive can carry a lot more traffic than another, you know, four lane divided urban major arterial roadway, because it just doesn't have that many major intersections. 41 Ms. Oliver: Right. And thank you. Because I think that's extremely important for people to understand that particular artery in our city, and how it used. One thing I would do want to, one of the other things I'd like to ask you about is that, and I don't live on Shore Drive, so I don't know, was that there was a reference to this intersection about accidents? Mr. Lowman: Okay, well, I took some notes. Ms. Oliver: Oh, great. Mr. Lowman: Yeah, I did. So I don't know of the crashes that they were speaking about. But I can tell you we do crash analysis.And we take the last three years of police reports that we have for all the signalized intersections in the city, and all the roadway segments in the city. So these are the numbers that came directly out of our annual report, the latest report being 2017 to 2019. So there's of the 378 signalized intersections that were studied, this intersection rank 194th out of 378. So in the bottom half, we are right about average for crashes, there were 11 crashes in the intersection. And the rank doesn't just count the number of crashes in the intersection. What it does it takes into account all the volume, the volume of traffic, so it's kind of a weighted average. And it also takes into account the severity of the crashes.So this puts this intersection,you know, right in the middle of all signalized intersections, it hasn't risen, you know, from say 2015 to 2017 to this period, you know, it's pretty average about 3.2 to 3.3 crashes a year at the intersection, and nothing really jumps out at us from that. I did check. There haven't been any crashes at the intersection this year, which is good news. There have been two crashes around the intersection one was a rear end crash on Eastbound Shore Drive past the intersection, just east of the intersection. And the other one was a really strange crash on Marlin Bay Drive, where a woman drove down the wrong. And I apologize, it may have been a woman or a man, I just saw a woman's name is part of the crash, but someone drove the wrong way on Marlin Bay. And they were cited for a DUI and it was in the middle of the day. It was weird. Ms. Oliver: Right. So great, thank you. Mr. Lowman: Any other questions? Mr. Weiner: Any other questions for Ric? Thanks Ric. Mr. Wall: It's not traffic, but the parking, people mentioned parking on Marlin Bay a couple of times? Mr. Lowman: Yes. 42 Mr. Wall: And that's not necessarily traffic. But it's there's no parking, or what's the restrictions? Mr. Lowman: The parking on the, I guess the west side of Marlin Bay Drive, it's restricted and I believe its 8 pm to 6 am. Don't quote me on those. But I know, it's to restrict people from parking there overnight and using the park. So that parking was generally for the, you know, for Pleasure House Point, but northbound, I know for at least the first block there's no parking allowed. I couldn't tell you exactly. We have a lot of roads in the city. I could do some research, but I know that southbound. Mr. Wall: Right, it's southbound, right but it's northbound and there's no parking, I mean, they can park there. Mr. Lowman: If it's allowed, they could park there. It's probably parking. Mr. Wall: Public right away. Sure. Okay. All right. Thanks. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Inman. Thanks Ric. Mr. Inman: You are off Ric, for a minute. Mr. Weiner: Yes sir, go ahead. Mr. Inman: I just want to start by saying that we are, as Mr. Graham mentioned,we are looking here to see if this is the highest and best use of the property. And we need to have this in that context. Also, the context of its zone B, half of B-2 the other part is residential. And there are lots of possibilities with B-2 and we've just heard some recent discussion about that. So what do you do with this property and why is it still sitting there after all this time? B-2 is a very liberal, commercial zoning category. Lots of things can be done in B-2 including what we just talked about. The traffic study the restaurant site, possibility. So what did we do with this property,then I heard a lot of even the opposition speaker say that they didn't have a problem with apartments, they just have a problem with these apartments in a way it's designed. Well, actually, the Bayfront Advisory Commission in that report, they said that they were great with the architecture and in fact there was a response to their concerns about architecture that were met by the applicant in terms of reducing the height of that western portion of the structure. But they also wanted the southern portion of the structure reduced. And because they, the applicant said that we can't do it without 197 that's the best we can do to reduce it from 227 to 197.They disapproved the project,although they liked the architecture, as it turned out in the end as I read the report. So apartments aren't bad there according to the sort of a consensus. And so then the developer has to figure out well, okay, they want more aesthetics to the approach from the west. So they set it back, and we reduce the height. And we enclosed parking, which is part of the 43 guidelines that everybody's supposed to be following on apartment developments, not to have parking outside the buildings, right, that's accomplished, that's not cheap to do. But it also sort of forced the building toward the east. And that, unfortunately, is having some impact, obviously, on some homeowners who have spoken to us today, and I respect that they're doing their best to offset that by planting strip, and the height of trees that will be adjacent on that strip to minimize that impact. Were it not developed as an apartment project, it would most likely be developed with a denser housing, and on that southern part of the property, which is zoned for housing now. So it's, and we know that we also have heard people comment about how retail is the problem, I mean getting that's probably a good reason why it hasn't been developed B-2 because everybody's afraid to make the investment in B-2. And I think that the traffic that is generated on Shore Drive, yeah, sure there are times, it's really bad. And I've lived here 40 some years, I've used to live up in the Great Neck area, I've driven Shore Drive a million times, I've been in the traffic. But the 197 units in here are not going to be a significant according that's not my opinion, this is the opinion of experts who have analyzed the data, and analyzed the sources and the time of day and all that business and I don't think the feeling or the impression that traffic is going to be severely impacted or worsened by this project is real. I don't think it's real. So that's my thoughts on it. Mr. Weiner: Thank you sir. Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall: I think the architecture is very good. I think the Peterson Company is great company. I think that, you know, they've worked with the Bayfront Advisory Commission to certain extents, you know, they didn't get quite the approval they were looking for. But they did reduce the number of units. I think it did impact the landscaping upfront on Shore Drive. I think it not proved, but I think it's been shown that the traffic, you know, won't negatively be, shouldn't be negatively impacted or should be negatively, shouldn't be impacted one way or the other. Economics are good, fiscal impacts positively for the city. I think they've shown parking shouldn't be negatively, shouldn't be impacted, negatively impacted. I think they've dodged, you know, a large bullet with when the Pleasure House Point Park was already zoned PDH-1 so that whole area could have been developed, it's huge track of lands. And I'm not sure that anything really is going to satisfy the homeowners within Ocean Park, you know, whatever, whatever goes there. However, the Comprehensive Plan there, this is suburban focus area one. And it's stated there to preserve and protect the character of established neighborhoods. I think the residents see this, that it will impact them negatively, the Bayfront Advisory Commission, the way that this is laid out, as pointed that it will impact the neighborhood. I'm not sure if it is best and highest use for the property. So I plan to not support it. And I will probably support the road closures, but not the project itself. Thank you. 44 Mr. Weiner: Mr. Bradley. Mr. Bradley: I am hoping to have training wheels for another meeting, but I guess I need to take the training wheels off. I'm not too far from what was just discussed. There's a lot of positives with the project, I think it's a good looking apartment complex. And we need apartments in the city. I like the multi-use walkway that's going to be integrated into it. It's got nice landscaping. So, I think the project itself would look good.The fiscal impact,you know, as the former budget director in the city, I guess can't ever get that hat off, I guess. But you know, the fiscal impact is slight in the scheme of things. And I'm not minimizing that residential development generally doesn't pay for itself, because it's not just the roadways in schools. It's the calls for service for EMS and fire and police and more human services workers. So its slight and apartments generally are slightly fiscally positive because of the low school multipliers. But at the end of the day, you know, the stakeholders that live in this community thought that the zoning, you know had a zoning expectation and this is much denser than what they were expecting. And you know, one of the things that stood out to me in the formal discussion, I think the Civic League president brought it up today was this I think it's a second page, we talked about the density. And to me, it is a dramatic change from what the people that moved in that area that have invested in that area, you know,were expecting. Throw in the fact that the Bayfront Advisory Committee, which is a council appointed committee that looks at those issues in that area also did not support it. I'm gonna be voting against the application. Mr. Weiner: Anybody else? Ms. Oliver: So obviously this application, and I'll try not to repeat what everybody's said here. It's been on in the spotlight for quite some time. And interestingly enough, as we all know,we don't have a whole lot of land here left to develop and especially north of the green line. And I've been down in Florida a lot lately,just took my daughter down there to school, my parents live down there. My father was an executive down there for many, many years and Florida is a great state as far as how they seem to do this beautiful dance of single family homes and townhouses and three story and four story apartments and high rises all within the same area of each other. They do it well, and everything's landscaped and there's big, beautiful sidewalks and there's berms and transition from one area to another. And it's something that I always thought Virginia Beach should aspire or attempt or at least try to hit that target on some lines. I think we have not done it more often than we have done it. But my daughter lives in, I think it's a three story it's an apartment. And right down, literally across the street from her is a development called Baldwin Park, absolutely stunning. And right next to that is a high rise and right next to that is the prettiest street with restaurants and apartments on top of that, and a large park and I just thought Virginia Beach should try its very best to do something along the lines of that. And I think that as much as we look at this, it is, you know, 45 we've gotten a garage, which is centered in the building. So for once, we don't have to see a garage, parking garage, which we see a lot of those down at the resort. And so that's concealed.And we've got three stories, four stories,that's not that big. A three story house is not that tall. And a four story building is not that tall. We've got it set back, we've got this beautiful segue of this wonderful walk, front doors that actually face Shore Drive. And it's developed enough so that we can actually, as Mr. Trower had said earlier, granted, unfortunately, the rents are what they are today. I wish we could get around it, Lord knows the one I'm paying for my daughter down in Florida is a lot higher. But that's an economy thing and that's all over. But when you look at this, and as the landscaping matures, and to be able to walk from here across Marlin Bay, use the Brock Center, do all of that I just think that they've done a good job as far as trying to incorporate something that's a little bit higher scale design than what we typically see. So, I like the project and I hope I'd like to see it go forward. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Horsley? Mr. Horsley: Well, I look at these renderings here and then look at the pictures of the site plan, I said wow, what a difference and you know, I understand kind of what the neighborhoods are talking about density but they've really willing to drop down on some of that density and you know, it just like Mr. Inman, the highest and best use and to me right now this looks like the highest and best use for this piece of property. And I think it's more than just the highest and best use, it's an amenity for the city. Go along what Dee just said, you know, I think it's something that, you know, people coming down on Shore Drive and see this. These renderings here, really, I think it's pretty astonishing to have along Shore Drive. I don't live over there, I don't think I could stand to live over there in a place that's that tight and whatever. But a lot of people love it. And a lot of people don't like where I live. So that makes a good mix of everybody. But this is, if I was a young person, young professional person looking for a start and I could come to Virginia Beach and try to find me a job, I think this is somewhere I would probably like to pursue and you know, have that close vicinity to get to the beach and whatever. And I just think it's a good thing and I'll plan on supporting this. Mr. Weiner: Thank you sir, Mr. Coston. Mr. Coston: Yes sir. I kind of want to go along with Robyn here. But money is what the money is. And I don't know how some people afford to start out and live in places like this nowadays and my wife agrees with the community,of course. But I've had probably Mr. Peterson's displeasure of having inspected a few of his properties over the years. And he does a lot better job than a lot of other people in the profession. I mean, I've seen places where I've written three and four pages and wait three or four months to get things corrected when here is the exact opposite. Not that he 46 gets a rubber stamp, but he's proven thus far to be good at what he does, and I'll be supporting. Mr. Weiner: Okay. Real quick. And I'm not going to get back to what everybody else has said. But I'm gonna go in a different direction. I like doing that. I'm gonna bring up something my colleagues are probably tired of me hearing but I have to because it falls in line what this is. So about 10 years ago, I was out there. I was out there where you are. I was sitting out there with you and there was a lot more people here and there was an apartment complex called 525 Apartments of Kempsville, Witchduck and Princess Anne Road. And everybody out there was not in favor of Mr. Horsley, he was up here and he says he remembers me but I don't think he does. And I was out there speaking and that apartment complex is in my backyard in Kempsville and nobody liked it, nobody wanted it, but I thought, you know, this is going to revitalize our area. And right now, there's a 185 apartments in there. And if you ask everybody in the neighborhood today, they'll tell you why we can't, we don't even know anybody lives there. We can't tell cars are coming in and out. It's clean. It brings development to our area. It's revitalizing the neighborhood. It has not lost one penny. Everybody out there said we're gonna lose value on our homes. It has not lost one value in the area. If anything, it's helped our area out in Kempsville. I'm also a member of another committee Envision 2040, which Mr. Horsley there started that committee back in 2012. And back in 2012, we had 440,000 people in the city. Right now we're at about 460,000. And our goal, not our goal, but it's —we're progressing by 2040 maybe have close to half a million people in the city.And where are we going to live?We can't find places to live now. And as Ms. Oliver said, we're running out of room to build. I think we really need to take a step back and decide how we're going to do this and we had to find places for people to live. Oceana if I'm not mistaken, Oceana, working on or is working on bringing another Squadron here. That's close to 3000 people. We just approved 100,000 square foot facility in the City of Virginia Beach last month. It's going to bring 400 to 600 more jobs here to the city. People are coming here to live, people want to live in this corridor. Mr. Redmond said it best back in Marina Shores when they wanted to put the apartment on top of the tennis court. People want to live in your area. I know you don't like it. It's changed. It's called change. But people want to come live in the Shore Drive corridor area. It's a beautiful place to live.They love it. We just have to find places for them to live there. So I'm going to be supporting. Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond: Ms. Eisenberg, do I understand correctly?We need to vote on these six and seven as one item? Eight and nine as another. Ms. Eisenberg: Yes. Mr. Redmond:Okay. Therefore, I move approval of agenda items number six and seven. 47 Mr. Weiner: Street closure. Yes. We have a motion by Mr. Redmond. Mr. Graham: I'll second the motion. Mr. Redmond:Second by Mr. Graham. Madam Clerk: Vote is open. By recorded vote of nine in favor, one against the agenda items six and seven have been recommended for approval. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Redmond? Mr. Redmond: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of agenda items number eight and nine. Mr. Graham: I second the motion. Mr. Weiner: Motion by Mr. Redmond and second by Mr. Graham. Madam Clerk: Vote is open. By a recorded vote of seven in favor, three against agenda items eight and nine have been recommended for approval. Mr. Weiner: All right. That is all we have, any new business, old business. Good. Good. Good. We're adjourned. VOTE for Items 6& 7—Street Closures AYE 9 NAY 1 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz ABSENT Bradley NAY Coston AYE Graham AYE Horsley AYE Inman AYE Klein AYE Oliver AYE Redmond AYE Wall AYE Weiner AYE CONDITIONS—STREET CLOSURES 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 48 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the properties and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed areas into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said plat shall include the dedication of a 25' wide public drainage easement along the eastern half of the proposed closure area of Ocean Tides Drive,subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works, and the City Attorney's Office, which easement shall include a reasonable right of ingress and egress. 3. The applicant or the applicant's successors or assigns shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for the closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved for recordation within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. VOTE for Items 8 & 9—Conditional Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit AYE 7 NAY 3 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz ABSENT Bradley NAY Coston AYE Graham AYE Horsley AYE Inman AYE Klein NAY Oliver AYE Redmond AYE Wall NAY Weiner AYE PROFFERS - REZONING The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA).The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h)of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to"offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. Proffer 1: When the Property is developed, it shall be as a 197 unit multifamily residential community substantially in accordance with the exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY — VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Layout—April 01, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to 49 the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development (the "Concept Plan"). Proffer 2: When the Property is developed, vehicular ingress and egress to the Property shall be limited to one (1) access from Shore Drive and one (1) access from Marlin Bay Drive substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. Proffer 3: When the Property is developed, the MARLIN BAY apartment building shall have the architectural design, appearance and exterior building materials substantially as depicted and described on the exhibits labeled "MARLIN BAY NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT — SHORE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, PROPOSED ELEVATION—EXTERIOR MATERIALS", dated April 23, 2021, prepared by Cox, Kliewer & Company, P.C., which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development (the "Elevations"). Proffer 4: All lighting on the Property shall be limited to that necessary for security and safety purposes and to comply with applicable laws and shall be shielded to prevent glare and spillover onto adjacent properties. 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: Staff has reviewed the Proffers listed above and finds them acceptable. They provide assurance that the development of the site will be as depicted on the proffer concept plan, elevations and renderings. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the agreement and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. CONDITIONS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. When the Property is developed it shall be no more than 197 multi-family units with vehicular ingress and egress limited to one (1) access from Shore Drive and one (1)access from Marlin Bay Drive with a layout in substantial conformance with the exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY — VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Layout — April 01, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development(the"Concept Plan"). In no case shall the area labeled "Existing Boat Sales" and the associated parking lot be developed with any dwelling units. 2. Consistent with the concepts of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan adopted by the Virginia Beach City Council on March 28, 2000, the applicant shall construct and provide a public 50 pedestrian/bike easement for the 10-foot wide multi-use trail depicted on the concept plan exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY — VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Layout — August 30, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development. The multi-use trail shall be paved with a material acceptable to City Staff and the easement shall be recorded with the Clerk Circuit Court prior to final site plan approval. 3. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted that is in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan entitled, "MARLIN BAY—VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Landscape Plan — August 30, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development. A Site Plan shall not be released until the Landscape Plan is approved by the Development Service Center Landscape Architect. Any dead, diseased, or dying plantings shall be replaced by the next planting cycle. 4. The required Category IV landscape buffers shall be planted with evergreen trees and shrubs. The trees shall be permitted to grow and be maintained at a minimum height of 20 feet; the shrubs shall be permitted to grow and be maintained at a minimum height of five (5)feet. 5. Dumpster(s) shall be enclosed with a solid brick wall on three sides in color and material to match the building and any required screening shall be installed in accordance with Section 245(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The freestanding Community Identification Sign shall be located substantially at the location identified on the exhibit referenced in Proffer 1 and limited to a monument style sign with a brick base, no taller than eight feet high and eight feet length, externally lit, constructed with materials and colors that complement the exterior of the apartment building. 7. An iconic, freestanding feature shall be installed on the property as a visual amenity at the entrance from Shore Drive. Said feature shall be depicted on the final site plan and submitted to the Planning Director for review and ultimate approval authority. 8. Any onsite signage shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and there shall be no neon, other than individual channel letters lighted with internal neon and as approved by the Zoning Administrator, or electronic display signs or accents, installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, in or on the windows, or on the doors. There shall be no window signage permitted. The building signage shall not be a"box sign" and the proposed sign package shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and acceptance prior to the issuance of a sign permit. 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 approvals allowed by this application are valid. 51 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. 52 W I L L C ❑ X SAVAGE Lisa M.Murphy (757)628-5540 lmurphy@wilsay.com 87644.001 September 30, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Hoa N. Dao Current Planning Manager/Planning Evaluation Coordinator Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach,Virginia 23452 Street Closure Applications—JTR,LLC ("Applicant") 2020-PCCC-00315/00316 Conditional Rezoning& Conditional Use Permit Applications - MP Shore,LLC ("Applicant") 2020-PCCC-00122/00123—Bayside Dear Hoa: As a follow-up to our telephone conversation, I am writing to you on behalf of the Applicants in connection with the referenced applications to seek to have the public hearings on these applications deferred to the December 7th City Council Meeting in order to address issues raised at the Planning Commission Hearing and to discuss those issues with the community. We also want to share with the community, the environmental sustainability programs currently being negotiated with Dominion Virginia Power for implementation in connection with this project. Please do not hesitate to call or email me should you have any questions regarding this request. With kind regards, I am Verytruly yours r Lisa M. Murphy cc: Mr. John H. Peterson III (via email) Mr. William A. Wilcox II (via email) Mr. Terry L. Browning(via email) Reply to Norfolk Office 440 MONTICELLO AVENUE SUITE 2200 NORFOLK, VA 23510 757.628.5500 FACSIMILE 757.628.5565 222 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE SUITE 1500 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462 757.628.5600 FACSIMILE 757.628.5659 WWW.WILLCOXANDSAVAGE.COM 1-1671194.1 R5R .1�;5R QQ FRS. 7B2 ��� R5R So paa S� 64c JB-4- ra ,iirrott r ov � , Ei, - B�4 B2 On 100}_l _- , __ ii ,�• 0 000511 DODOMu re pave S - ve S ° B2 =ore pry h CI-32 _•-.-----,, , , re-prove Sh _ _ - 42- B2 " _ , _ ---e _p.r-ive-sh° _'. Shore R5 D RV fit `� R5 -B2 ii. PDH 1 67 C 47111ibH11111.0 . P‘D H 1 , WO \/ /(7. ''' ' 4i,, ' -A s . ♦•4 PD H.1,1� j �PD ' r►r PtD H=1 I� � $1i, A4t,d*t1t4, y*ir 7v1P D H 1= pp/j .pv.: D;,_ o _° V :. 4 At *S 0 *. 'V % PD'H19 • R40 � s�-���o N % A Site MP Shore, LLC W-4&E -�'�,. Property Polygons 3829 & 3785 Shore Drive, adjacent parcel S Zoning between Marlin Bay Drive and 3829 Shore Drive Building I iii. Feet e-.2 (N, is CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM j ITEM: MP SHORE DRIVE, LLC [Applicant] JTR, LLC, BAYLINER BUILDING, LLC, SHORE DRIVE AREA PROPERTIES, LLC & CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH [Property Owners] Conditional Change of Zoning (PD-H1 Planned Development & B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District (Shore Drive Overlay)) & Conditional Use Permit (Multi-Family Dwellings) for the properties located at 3829 & 3785 Shore Drive; and adjacent parcels between Marlin Bay Drive & 3829 Shore Drive (GPINs 1489286485, 1489288247, 1489289308, 1489289631, 1489382674). COUNCIL DISTRICT — BAYSIDE MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 (APPLICANT IS REQUESTING DEFERRAL) • Background: The subject properties located within the Shore Drive Corridor are zoned both B-2 Community Business District (3.20 acres) and PD-H1 Planned Unit Development District(2.20 acres). The sites are currently developed with a boat sales dealership and boat storage yard. Requests to close a portion of Ocean Tides Drive and Clipper Bay Drive in conjunction with this proposal to redevelop the site with an apartment complex are provided to the City Council under separate cover. This Agenda Request Form is specific to the applications for a conditional rezoning of 6.20-acres to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District as well as a Conditional Use Permit for up to 197 multi-family apartment units for a resulting density of 31 .77 units per acre. There is an existing retail building where the boat sales exist that will remain in operation and no improvements are planned to that portion of the site other than an overall reduction in the acreage for commercial uses from 3.20 acres to just over one acre. The proposed apartment buildings will be three and four stories. Specifically, the proffered elevations depict a 41/2-story parking garage wrapped with apartment units and a three-story western wing. The proffered elevations indicate the use of architectural roof shingles, premium vinyl siding, brick veneer, vinyl column and aluminum railings, board and batten and shake siding accents, and vinyl windows. The proposed development requires a minimum of 390 parking spaces, 358 spaces for the 197 multi-family dwelling units and 32 spaces for the 12,000 square foot commercial building. The concept plan depicts 346 spaces within the parking garage structure and 45 surface parking spaces, thereby exceeding the parking requirement by one space. MP Shore, LLC Page 2 of 5 The proffered concept plan also depicts a 10-foot wide multi-use trail on the subject property along Shore Drive, pedestrian pathways throughout the development, and a striped crosswalk to access the Pleasure House Point Natural Area southwest of the development. On September 30, 2021, the applicant submitted a written request to defer this application until the December 7, 2021 City Council public hearing in order to continue discussion with the surrounding communities. A copy of this request is attached. ■ Considerations: While the proposed density at 31.77 units per acre is higher compared to developments in the immediate surrounding area, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's 2002 Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines recommendation of low to medium density residential development within this "Mixed Zone" of the Shore Drive Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines also encourage the revitalization and reuse of existing commercial properties in the Corridor with uses that avoid over-commercialization and are mindful of land use compatibility issues. The redevelopment of the storage yard with multi-family dwelling units provides a more desirable as well as compatible transition of uses from Shore Drive to the residential dwellings within the neighborhood than the existing use. This policy is also specifically addressed through this proposal with the reduction in the amount of commercial acreage as well as the elimination of an undesirable use along the heavily traveled Shore Drive Corridor. The redevelopment will remove the aging bulk storage yard, developed in the 1980s prior to the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit, that is not well- screened or well-organized. Today, the storage yard and its contents can be easily seen from the surrounding rights-of-way and serves as an unattractive landmark at an entryway into the Ocean Park neighborhood. The unscreened and unbuffered bulk storage yard is not ideally situated adjacent to dwellings and as stated above not preferred along this portion of Shore Drive. While not required, a preliminary stormwater management analysis was submitted to the Development Services Center (DSC) outlining the proposed stormwater strategy for this site. The DSC has reviewed the preliminary stormwater analysis and finds that the submitted stormwater strategy has the potential to successfully comply with stormwater regulations for this site. The final Traffic Impact Study (TIS) indicates that the combined average daily trips (ADT) for by-right development on these parcels at their most intense use could be up to 1,884,which is approximately 30% more trips when compared to the 1,448 ADT generated by the proposed 197 multi-family units. The TIS also notes that the overall operations at the Shore Drive/Marlin Bay Drive intersection will be acceptable in the peak hours with the proposed development; however, delays for traffic on northbound Marlin Bay Drive will increase significantly during the morning and afternoon peak hours if the signal timing at this intersection is not modified to MP Shore, LLC Page 3 of 5 provide more green time for the Marlin Bay Drive movements. Based on this, a signal system retiming study was done and showed that Shore Drive corridor traffic would not be significantly impacted by this adjustment. Finally, the TIS also recommends the installation of a left-turn lane on westbound Shore Drive at the Ocean Tides Drive/Powhatan Avenue intersection for vehicles turning into the proposed development. The proffered concept layout plan now depicts this improvement. Further details pertaining to the application, as well as Staff's evaluation, are provided in the attached Staff Report. The applicant met with the Ocean Park Civic League and Shore Drive Community Coalition to discuss the details of the requests. The applicant also created a website specifically for the public to review information regarding this proposal. In addition, the applicant provided a presentation to the Bayfront Advisory Commission (BAC) and their design committee. The BAC recommended that the south wing of the building adjacent to existing townhouses be reduced from four to three stories. While the applicant did not make this full adjustment to the entire project, the scale of the proposal was reduced from the original request of 227 multi-family dwelling units to 197. The BAC passed a motion to not support the project stating that it did not meet the density recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan or the elements of the Design Guidelines in terms of the scale and context of new buildings in relation to the character of the site. Staff received 9 letters of support and 349 letters of opposition. There was 1 speaker in support and 17 speakers in opposition at the Planning Commission public hearing. The opposition noted concerns related to proposed density, impact to Ocean Park neighborhood, conflict with character of the surrounding area, inconvenience to public, stormwater and flooding, lack of good faith effort regarding public outreach, and on-site parking adequacy. • Recommendation: On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit by a vote of 7- 3, subject to the attached proffers and the conditions noted below. Recommended Conditions of Conditional Use Permit 1 . When the Property is developed it shall be no more than 197 multi-family units with vehicular ingress and egress limited to one (1) access from Shore Drive and one (1) access from Marlin Bay Drive with a layout in substantial conformance with the exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY — VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Layout — April 01, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development (the "Concept MP Shore, LLC Page 4 of 5 Plan"). In no case shall the area labeled "Existing Boat Sales" and the associated parking lot be developed with any dwelling units. 2. Consistent with the concepts of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan adopted by the Virginia Beach City Council on March 28, 2000, the applicant shall construct and provide a public pedestrian/bike easement for the 10-foot wide multi-use trail depicted on the concept plan exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY — VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Layout — April 01, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development. The multi-use trail shall be paved with a material acceptable to City Staff and the easement shall be recorded with the Clerk Circuit Court prior to final site plan approval. 3. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted that is in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan entitle, "MARLIN BAY — VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Landscape Plan — April 20, 2020", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development. A Site Plan shall not be released until the Landscape Plan is approved by the Development Service Center Landscape Architect. Any dead, diseased, or dying plantings shall be replaced by the next planting cycle. 4. The required Category IV landscape buffers shall be planted with evergreen trees and shrubs. The trees shall be permitted to grow and be maintained at a minimum height of 20 feet; the shrubs shall be permitted to grow and be maintained at a minimum height of five (5) feet. 5. Dumpster(s) shall be enclosed with a solid brick wall on three sides in color and material to match the building and any required screening shall be installed in accordance with Section 245(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The freestanding Community Identification Sign shall be located substantially at the location identified on the exhibit referenced in Proffer 1 and limited to a monument style sign with a brick base, no taller than eight feet high and eight feet length, externally lit, constructed with materials and colors that complement the exterior of the apartment building. 7. An iconic, freestanding feature shall be installed on the property as a visual amenity at the entrance from Shore Drive. Said feature shall be depicted on the final site plan and submitted to the Planning Director for review and ultimate approval authority. 8. Any onsite signage shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and there shall be no neon, other than individual channel letters lighted with internal neon and as approved by the Zoning Administrator, or electronic display signs or accents, MP Shore, LLC Page 5 of 5 installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, in or on the windows, or on the doors. There shall be no window signage permitted. The building signage shall not be a "box sign" and the proposed sign package shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and acceptance prior to the issuance of a sign permit. • Attachments: Staff Report and Disclosure Statements Location Map Proffer Agreement Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing Letters of Support (9 — Provided via Email) Letters of Opposition (349 — Provided via Email) Deferral Request Recommended Action: Staff recommends Approval. Planning Commission recommends Approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: 6_ Applicant for Items 6&7 JTR,LLC Agenda Property Owners for Items 6&7 JTR,LLC; Bayliner Building,LLC;Shore Drive Area Items Properties,LLC Applicant for Items 8&9 MP Shore,LLC6 Property Owners for Items 8&9 1TR,LLC; Bayliner Building,LLC;Shore Drive Area / 71 `" of Properties,LLC;City of Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Planning Commission Public Hearing September 8,2021 (Deferred from July 14, 8, 9 2021&June 9,2021) City Council Election District Bayside Requests #6-Street Closure(Portion of Clipper Bay Drive) #7-Street Closure(Portion of Ocean Tides Drive) #8-Conditional Rezoning(PD-H1 Planned Development&B-2 Community Business to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use(SD)) #9-Conditional Use Permit(Multi-Family Dwellings) Staff Recommendation Approval #7��, Staff Planner Hoa N.Dao01 aura Location Portions of Ocean Tides Drive&Clipper Bay Drive; 1 ,� 3829&3785 Shore Drive; adjacent parcels between a Marlin Bay Drive&3829 Shore Drive GPINs 1489286485, 1489288247, 1489289308, 1489289631, 1489382674 Site Size 6.20 acres AICUZ Less than 65 dB DNL Watershed Chesapeake Bay Existing Land Use and Zoning District Retail,boat storage/B-2 Community Business, PD- H1 Planned Unit Development -� Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts x •' ` `` North Shore Drive Multi-family dwellings /A-18 Apartment, B-4 Mixed - Use t r":, w South `"`, 4£ w Marlin Bay Drive,Clipper Bay Drive,Ocean Tides Drive Multi-family dwellings/PD-H1 Planned Unit • Development J East Mystic Cove Drive Retail/B-2 Community Business West Marlin Bay • Pleasure House Point Natural Area/P-1 Preservation JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7,8,9 Page 1 Background & Summary of Proposal • These requests were deferred by the Planning Commission on June 9, 2021 and again on July 14,2021 per the applicant's request in order to revise the Traffic Impact Study(TIS). This report has been updated since the original publication for the June 9,2021 Planning Commission public hearing to address the components of the updated TIS. • The request is threefold and includes Street Closures,a rezoning and a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family dwellings in the Shore Drive Overlay District. Specifically,the applicant seeks a Street Closure of approximately 26,400 square feet of Clipper Bay Drive and approximately 12,500 square feet of Ocean Tides Drive; a Conditional Rezoning request from PD-H1 Planned Unit Development and B-2 Community Business District to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District;and a Conditional Use Permit request to construct an apartment building complex with up to a maximum of 197 multi-family dwelling units,at a density of 31.77 units per acre. • Clipper Bay Drive and Ocean Tides Drive are partially improved with curb and gutter on a portion of Ocean Tides Drive and gutter on Clipper Bay Drive. • The proposed multi-family building varies in height of three to four stories.The proffered elevations depict a 4%- story parking garage wrapped with apartment units and a three-story western wing.The proffered elevations depict the apartment building with architectural roof shingles, premium vinyl siding, brick veneer,vinyl column and aluminum railings, board and batten and shake siding accents,and vinyl windows. • The area available for commercial uses will be reduced from 3.20 acres to just over one acre. This area is located on the eastern portion of the site and will continue to be occupied by the existing boat sales dealership and a possible eating and drinking establishment,as depicted on the submitted renderings.The ultimate uses are subject to market demand and as permitted by-right in the Zoning Ordinance. • The proposed development requires a minimum of 390 parking spaces,358 spaces for the 197 multi-family dwelling units and 32 spaces for the 12,000 square foot commercial building. The concept plan depicts 346 spaces within the parking garage structure and 45 surface parking spaces,thereby exceeding the parking requirement by one space. • The proffered concept plan depicts a 10-foot wide multi-use trail on the subject property along Shore Drive, pedestrian pathways throughout the development, and a striped crosswalk to access the Pleasure House Point Natural Area southwest of the development. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7, 8, 9 Page 2 Zoning History # Request s•., • 1 CRZ(B-2 to Conditional B-4)Approved 11/15/2016 y�ad�' Saba CUP(Multi-Family Dwellings(SD))Approved 11/15/2016 Roa,s, MOD(Boat Sales&Small Engine Repair)Approved " 07/02/2002 R. -6 ' - , CUP(Boat Sales&Small Engine Repair)Approved ---- - shore Drive , �i�� u 05/09/2000 ��r��•�!� i CUP(Automobile Service Station)Approved 01/28/1985 ce •qr t? , 2 REZ(PD-H1 to P-1)Approved 11/27/2012 1,1 t \; 3 MOD(Modification of Proffers)Approved 01/12/2010 Q MOD(Modification of Conditions)Approved 01/22/2008 2 '� � °° CRZ(B-2 to Conditional B-4)Approved 10/25/2005 zti _ - CUP(Multi-Family Dwellings(SD))Approved 10/25/2005 % 4 MOD(Modification of Conditions)Approved 09/22/2009 REZ(R-8 to B-2)Approved 06/08/1987 5 CRZ(B-2 to Conditional B-4)Approved 07/01/2003 CUP(Multi-Family Dwellings(SD))Approved 07/01/2003 6 CRZ(B-2 & P-1 to A-18)Approved 03/11/1998 7 CRZ(To PD-H1)Approved 08/10/1970 Application Types CUP—Conditional Use Permit MOD—Modification of Conditions or Proffers FVR—Floodplain Variance LUP—Land Use Plan REZ—Rezoning NON—Nonconforming Use ALT—Alternative Compliance STR—Short Term Rental CRZ—Conditional Rezoning STC—Street Closure SVR—Subdivision Variance Evaluation & Recommendation The applicants' requests for the closure of the rights-of-way,the Conditional Rezoning, and the Conditional Use Permit to redevelop the 6.20-acre site in Staff's opinion are acceptable. As required by City Code, a Viewers' Meeting was held on December 2, 2020,that included City Staff from the Departments of Public Works, Public Utilities, Planning & Community Development, and the Office of the City Attorney, to consider closure of portion of Clipper Bay Drive and Ocean Tides Drive. The Viewers noted that the residents of Ocean Park do use this portion of Ocean Tides Drive or Clipper Bay Drive that are proposed for closure, and that there are existing paved alternative routes that provide access to and from the neighborhood and the City park from Shore Drive that include a safe and signalized intersection.Therefore, the Viewers determined that the proposed closure will not result in any public inconvenience and closure of these portions of the rights-of-way are deemed acceptable. While the proposed density at 31.77 units per acre is higher compared to developments in the immediate surrounding area, in Staff's view the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's 2002 Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines recommendation of low to medium density residential development within this "Mixed Zone" of the Shore Drive Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines also encourage the revitalization and reuse of existing commercial properties in the Corridor with uses that avoid over-commercialization and are mindful of land use compatibility issues.The redevelopment of the storage yard with multi-family dwelling units provides a more desirable as well as compatible transition of uses from Shore Drive to the residential dwellings within the neighborhood than the existing use. This policy is also specifically addressed through this proposal with the reduction in the amount of commercial acreage as well as the elimination of an undesirable use along the heavily traveled Shore Drive corridor. The redevelopment will remove the aging bulk storage yard, developed in the 1980s prior to the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit, that is not well-screened or well-organized. Today,the storage yard and its contents can be easily seen from the surrounding rights-of-way and serves as an unattractive landmark at an entryway into the Ocean Park neighborhood. The unscreened and unbuffered bulk storage yard is not ideally situated adjacent to dwellings and as stated above not preferred along this portion of Shore Drive. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 3 The Shore Drive Corridor Plan, part of the Comprehensive Plan's Reference Handbook, includes design recommendations for the Shore Drive Corridor addressing setbacks, massing,scale and context, building materials, pedestrian orientation,and parking location. Staff's review for consistency with the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines ("the Guidelines") is provided below. Setbacks and Massing-The Guidelines recommend placing structures close to right-of-way lines to create more architectural interest.Also recommended is that facades be articulated to reduce the scale of the structure and the one-dimensional appearance of buildings to encourage a more human scale and pedestrian orientation. Consistent with the Guidelines,the front facade of the building is located at the front yard setback and has multiple street-oriented entrances with interesting architectural features such as porches and columns that enhance the exterior appearance of the buildings and prevent linear massing. Scale and Context-The immediate surrounding developments on the south side of Shore Drive consist of two- story townhomes.The subject site is within the Mixed Zone of the Shore Drive Corridor and fronts Shore Drive, where a higher and denser development is more appropriate. Less than half a mile east of the subject site, before the Lesner Bridge,there are apartment buildings as tall as 15-stories that are also located within the Mixed Zone of the Shore Drive Corridor. It should also be noted that the building height for by-right developments within the existing B-2 Community Business District,of which there is 3.20 acres, can be built up to a height of 200 feet. Building Materials-The Guidelines specifically call for high-quality materials for the walls, roofs,windows and doors.The proffered elevations identify materials and design elements of architectural roof shingles, premium vinyl siding, brick veneer,vinyl column and aluminum railings, board and batten and shake siding accents,and vinyl windows, all of which are consistent with the Guidelines with the exception of the wall materials.The exterior walls will include of the use of premium vinyl siding and brick veneer while the Guidelines recommend use of"clad in wood, cedar shingles, hardboard siding, lightweight concrete siding, or shingles." Pedestrian Orientation-The conceptual site layout depicts a 10-foot multi-use trail along Shore Drive to be installed by the applicant. Pedestrian pathways are provided throughout the development for access to the parking garage,community amenities,commercial space, and public streets. In addition,a striped crosswalk will be provided to access the Pleasure House Point Trail located west of this development.The multiple pedestrian access points and green space along Shore Drive achieve a multi-modal option for residents. Parking—The proposed four and a half-story parking structure is wrapped by the four-story apartment building, which creates a more aesthetically pleasing design that blends in with the surrounding residential community. With the exception of parking area for the existing boat sales dealership located between the building and public street,that does not conform with the Guidelines,all new surface parking spaces are located toward the rear of the building and screened from the public rights-of-way as recommended in the Guidelines. The concept plan indicates a proposed community identification signage at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive.An exhibit of the freestanding sign was not provided with the submittal; however, a condition is recommended that such a sign have a brick base, be no taller than eight feet high and eight feet long, be externally lit, and be constructed with materials and colors that complement the exterior of the proposed apartment building.The submitted renderings also depicts an iconic identification feature, specifically a sculpture, at the entrance along Shore Drive.A condition is recommended for the installation of such a feature and will be reviewed at final site plan. While not required,a preliminary stormwater management analysis was submitted to the Development Services Center (DSC)outlining the proposed stormwater strategy for this site. The DSC has reviewed the preliminary stormwater analysis and finds that the submitted stormwater strategy has the potential to successfully comply with stormwater regulations for this site. More detailed information can be found in the Stormwater Impacts section of this report. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 4 The applicant submitted a revised Traffic Impact Study(TIS)for review on August 20, 2021.The revised TIS considers traffic volume for developments on the B-2 and PD-H1 zoning districts that could be constructed today as a matter of right.The TIS assumes that the B-2 zoned parcel (2.08-acre), excluding the 1.04-acre portion that is occupied by the Lynnhaven Marine Boat Retail, could be developed with a 4,000 square foot eating and drinking establishment with a drive-through and 26 multi-family units could be developed on the 1.9-acre portion zoned PD-H1.The combined average daily trips (ADT)for these developments could be up to 2,074. However, multi-family development within the Shore Drive Overlay District would be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit;therefore,Staff excluded the ADT generation of the 26 dwellings from this analysis.The ADT generation from a fast food restaurant with a drive-through could be up to 1,884,which is approximately 30% more trips when compared to the 1,448 ADT generated by the proposed 197 multi-family units. The TIS indicates that the overall operations at the Shore Drive/Marlin Bay Drive intersection will be acceptable in the peak hours with the proposed development. However,the TIS shows that the delays for traffic on northbound Marlin Bay Drive will increase significantly with this development in the AM and PM peak hours if the signal timing at this intersection is not modified to provide more green time for the Marlin Bay Drive movements. The applicant's engineer performed a signal system retiming study to show that Shore Drive corridor traffic would not be significantly impacted by giving green time to the northbound approach and taking time away from Shore Drive at this intersection. The revised TIS also recommends for an installation of a left-turn lane on westbound Shore Drive at the Ocean Tides Drive/Powhatan Avenue intersection for vehicles turning into the proposed development. The applicant submitted a revised concept layout plan that included the new left-turn lane as recommended by the TIS. Traffic Engineering has reviewed the revised TIS and concurs with its findings. With respect to school impacts,Virginia Beach City of Public Schools Staff finds that the number of students generated by the development can be accommodated for the respective grade and attendance zone. The schools are all currently within an acceptable utilization range of+/-10%of optimum capacity. Based on these considerations,Staff recommends approval of these applications,subject to the proffers and conditions below. The applicant met with the Ocean Park Civic League and Shore Drive Community Coalition to discuss the details of the requests. Details of the project are also posted on a website created by the applicant. The applicant discussed the elements of the project with the Bayfront Advisory Commission (BAC) and their design committee.The BAC recommended that the south wing of the building adjacent to existing townhouses be reduced from four to three stories.While the applicant did not make this adjustment,the scale of the proposal was reduced from the original request of 227 multi-family dwelling units to 197. The BAC passed a motion to not support the project stating that it did not meet the density recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan or the elements of the Design Guidelines in terms of the scale and context of new buildings in relation to the character of the site. Recommended Conditions for Street Closure 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee.The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the"Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council.Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the properties and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed areas into the adjoining parcels.The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said plat shall include the dedication of a 25'wide public drainage easement along the eastern half of the proposed closure area of Ocean Tides Drive,subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works, and the City Attorney's Office,which easement shall include a reasonable right of ingress and egress. JTR, LLC&MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 5 3. The applicant or the applicant's successors or assigns shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for the closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved for recordation within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. Proffers for Rezoning The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA).The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h)of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)).Should this application be approved,the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. Proffer 1: When the Property is developed, it shall be as a 197 unit multifamily residential community substantially in accordance with the exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY—VIRGINIA BEACH,VA,Conceptual Layout—April 01, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group,which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development (the"Concept Plan"). Proffer 2: When the Property is developed,vehicular ingress and egress to the Property shall be limited to one(1)access from Shore Drive and one (1)access from Marlin Bay Drive substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. Proffer 3: When the Property is developed,the MARLIN BAY apartment building shall have the architectural design,appearance and exterior building materials substantially as depicted and described on the exhibits labeled"MARLIN BAY NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT—SHORE DRIVE,VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA, PROPOSED ELEVATION—EXTERIOR MATERIALS",dated April 23, 2021, prepared by Cox, Kliewer&Company, P.C.,which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development(the "Elevations"). Proffer 4: All lighting on the Property shall be limited to that necessary for security and safety purposes and to comply with applicable laws and shall be shielded to prevent glare and spillover onto adjacent properties. 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:Staff has reviewed the Proffers listed above and finds them acceptable. They provide assurance that the development of the site will be as depicted on the proffer concept plan,elevations and renderings. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the agreement and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8, 9 Page 6 Recommended Conditions for Conditional Use Permit 1. When the Property is developed it shall be no more than 197 multi-family units with vehicular ingress and egress limited to one(1)access from Shore Drive and one (1)access from Marlin Bay Drive with a layout in substantial conformance with the exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY—VIRGINIA BEACH,VA, Conceptual Layout—April 01,2021", prepared by Timmons Group,which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development(the "Concept Plan"). In no case shall the area labeled "Existing Boat Sales"and the associated parking lot be developed with any dwelling units. 2. Consistent with the concepts of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan adopted by the Virginia Beach City Council on March 28,2000,the applicant shall construct and provide a public pedestrian/bike easement for the 10-foot wide multi-use trail depicted on the concept plan exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY—VIRGINIA BEACH,VA, Conceptual Layout—August 30,2021", prepared by Timmons Group,which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development.The multi-use trail shall be paved with a material acceptable to City Staff and the easement shall be recorded with the Clerk Circuit Court prior to final site plan approval. 3. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted that is in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan entitled, "MARLIN BAY—VIRGINIA BEACH,VA, Conceptual Landscape Plan—August 30, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development.A Site Plan shall not be released until the Landscape Plan is approved by the Development Service Center Landscape Architect.Any dead, diseased,or dying plantings shall be replaced by the next planting cycle. 4. The required Category IV landscape buffers shall be planted with evergreen trees and shrubs.The trees shall be permitted to grow and be maintained at a minimum height of 20 feet;the shrubs shall be permitted to grow and be maintained at a minimum height of five(5)feet. 5. Dumpster(s)shall be enclosed with a solid brick wall on three sides in color and material to match the building and any required screening shall be installed in accordance with Section 245(e)of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The freestanding Community Identification Sign shall be located substantially at the location identified on the exhibit referenced in Proffer 1 and limited to a monument style sign with a brick base, no taller than eight feet high and eight feet length,externally lit,constructed with materials and colors that complement the exterior of the apartment building. 7. An iconic,freestanding feature shall be installed on the property as a visual amenity at the entrance from Shore Drive.Said feature shall be depicted on the final site plan and submitted to the Planning Director for review and ultimate approval authority. 8. Any onsite signage shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and there shall be no neon,other than individual channel letters lighted with internal neon and as approved by the Zoning Administrator,or electronic display signs or accents, installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, in or on the windows, or on the doors.There shall be no window signage permitted.The building signage shall not be a "box sign"and the proposed sign package shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and acceptance prior to the issuance of a sign permit. 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 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8,9 Page 7 Planning/Development Services Center and Department of Planning/Permits and Inspections Division, and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, are required before any approvals allowed by this application 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. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being in Suburban Focus Area 1—Shore Drive Corridor.The Shore Drive Corridor is an integral part of the Bayfront Community,extending from North Independence Boulevard to First Landing State Park.While primarily a residential community,the corridor shares the responsibility of being one of Virginia Beach's primary east-west connectors,creating unique and sometimes problematic challenges.The area is considered a resort neighborhood and not a resort destination.The Shore Drive Corridor is primarily a residential neighborhood area with commercial uses to support the residents. The Shore Drive Corridor is an integral part of the Bayfront Community,extending from North Independence Boulevard to First Landing State Park.While primarily a residential community,the corridor shares the responsibility of being one of City's primary east-west connectors.The area is considered a resort neighborhood and not a resort destination. It is also characterized with primarily neighborhood residential area,commercial uses that supports the neighborhoods, and passive recreational and tourism activities. Similar to all the Suburban Areas in the City,the character of the established neighborhoods along the Corridor must be preserved and protected.Though revitalization and reuse of existing commercial properties in the Corridor is encourage,one must be mindful of the land use compatibility and avoidance of over-commercialization to ensure that resort-based uses complement rather than dominate the Corridor. Future residential uses should strive to achieve the lowest reasonable density to be compatible with the existing neighborhood residential density. Planning policies that apply to this request include improving the land use compatibilities, avoiding over- commercialization, preserving and protecting the character of established neighborhoods and achieving the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses. Natural & Cultural Resources Impacts The site is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.The site is also located in the AE and X Flood Zones with a Base Flood Elevation of seven feet.There do not appear to be any significant natural or cultural resources associated with the site. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8,9 Page 8 Traffic Impacts Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Existing Land Use 2a—No Data Available Shore Drive 37,136 ADT1 36,900 ADT 1(LOS°"D") Existing Zoning 2n-1,732 ADT Existing Zoning 2`-1,884 ADT Marlin Bay Drive No Data Available Proposed Land Use 3—1,448 ADT Mystic Cove Drive No Data Available AM Peak Hour—91 ADT PM Peak Hour—108 ADT Average Daily Trips 2a as defined by a boat sales 3 as defined by 197 multi-family °LOS=Level of Service dealership and boat storage yard dwellings zb as defined by a 3.12-acre site zoned B-2 2cas defined by a 2.08-acre site zoned B-2 with a 4,000 square foot restaurant with a drive-through Master Transportation Plan (MTP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Shore Drive in the vicinity of this application is considered a four-lane divided major urban arterial.The MTP proposes a six-lane facility within a 150-foot right-of-way.Currently,this segment of roadway is functioning near capacity at a LOS D. The Shore Drive Corridor Improvements-Phase IV project begins at the Marlin Bay Drive intersection and ends at the west end of the Lesner Bridge.This project will improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and safety in the roadway and intersections; improve storm drainage; include a multi-use trail, 5-foot sidewalk and on-street bike lanes; and enhance the corridor with aesthetic elements such as landscaping and lighting. It will include improvements at the East Stratford Road intersection. The project is currently in the design phase and construction is scheduled to begin in mid- 2024. Marlin Bay Drive and Mystic Cove Drive are two-lane divided local streets. There are currently no plans to improve these roadways. Public Utility Impacts Water The subject sites,3829 and 3785 Shore Drive,are connected to City water services.The proposed development will be required to connect to City water and obtain an approved variance from the Public Utilities Design Standards for multiple services on a single parcel.There are existing 16-inch City water main along Shore Drive, eight-inch water main along Marlin Bay Drive,and 6-inch water mains along Ocean Tides Drive and Mystic Cove Drive. Sewer The subject site, 3785 Shore Drive, is connected to City sanitary sewer service.The proposed development will be required to connect to City sanitary sewer service and obtain an approved variance from the Public Utilities Design Standards for multiple services on a single parcel.There are two 8-inch City sanitary gravity mains along Shore Drive,an 18-inch HRSD force main along Shore Drive, and 8-inch gravity mains along Ocean Tides Drive and Mystic Cove Drive. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8,9 Page 9 Stormwater Impacts Project Stormwater Design Staff Summary The project site consists of 5.82 acres consisting of multiple parcels and rights-of-ways and proposes a net reduction of 0.57 acres of impervious cover from existing condition. The northern portion of the project currently drains to the public drainage system in Shore Drive, and the southern portion drains to the public drainage system in Ocean Tides Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. The majority of the proposed development is designed to drain to proposed onsite stormwater management facilities (SWMFs) before discharging to the public drainage systems in Ocean Tides Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. The portion of the project that will continue to drain to Shore Drive has been reduced in both total area and impervious area. The proposed SWMFs will consist of two underground detention systems that will be located under the proposed grassed areas, parking lot, and parking garage. The underground detention systems will be used to satisfy water quantity requirements, and offsite nutrient credits will be used to satisfy water quality requirements. The preliminary grading plans propose filling the site to an elevation of 7'to 8' above sea level (existing grades ranging from elevation 4' to 7')to elevate the site/buildings above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation of 7'. The proposed detention chambers will replicate the stormwater storage volume lost by filling the site. The provided preliminary stormwater management design demonstrates conveyance of the runoff from the proposed development for storms up to and including the 100-year event plus 1.5' of sea-level rise (SLR). The submitted stormwater model included an offsite analysis to verify that the project will not have a negative impact or increase flooding levels on the existing stormwater system upstream or downstream. Based on the information provided by the Timmons Group in the Preliminary Stormwater Analysis, the DSC agrees that the proposed conceptual stormwater management strategy has the potential to successfully comply with the stormwater requirements. Final design and detailed updates will be made during site plan submittal. More detailed project stormwater information is listed below. Project Information Total project area: 5.82 Acres Pre-Development impervious area:4.11 Acres Post-Development impervious area: 3.54 Acres Does the analysis utilize the City of Virginia Beach Master Drainage Model: Yes Does the analysis incorporate into design updated rainfall amounts (NOAA plus 20%) and account for 1.5'SLR: Yes Stormwater Management Facility Design Information Type of facility proposed: Underground detention Total storage volume provided in proposed stormwater management facilities: 113,248 cubic feet Description of outfall: Drainage from the north side of the property drains to the public drainage system in Shore Drive which continues through Ocean Park to a stormwater pump station on Powhatan Avenue.The stormwater pump station discharges through a closed pipe system to outfall into Pleasure House Creek south of Shore Drive. The underground detention systems discharge into public drainage systems in Ocean Tides Drive and Marlin Bay Drive;those two systems combine at the same outfall pipe under Marlin Bay Drive. This outfall pipe discharges to a series of interconnected ponds and channels before reaching Pleasure House Creek. Downstream conveyance path: Pleasure House Creek connects directly to Lynnhaven Bay JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 10 Stormwater Quality Compliance Design Information Pounds of phosphorus removal per year(Ib/yr) required:0.86 lb/yr Method of treatment proposed: The required 0.86 lb/yr reduction is proposed to be provided through the purchase of nutrient credits from an offsite nutrient bank. Stormwater Quantity Compliance Design Information Channel protection: Provided stormwater model demonstrates non-erosive velocities of stormwater discharge. Flood protection:Attenuation of peak flow rates with no increase in flooding for 10-year storm in all evaluated stormwater structures upstream and downstream. 100-Year storm evaluation: Stormwater modeling demonstrates project meets requirement of no increase in flooding for 100-year storm in all evaluated structures upstream and downstream. Sea-Level Rise: Project evaluated, and stormwater modeling demonstrates proposed buildings will not be impacted by stormwater during 100-year(including 1.S' SLR)storm event. School Impacts School Current Enrollment Capacity Generation 1 Change 2 Thoroughgood Elementary 551 students 706 students 22 students 22 students Great Neck Middle 1,066 students 1,194 students 9 students 9 students Frank W. Cox High 1,772 students 1,963 students 10 students 10 students "Generation"represents the number of students that the development will add to the school. 2"change"represents the difference between the number of potential or actual students generated under the existing zoning and the number generated under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive(additional students)or negative(fewer students). Public Outreach Information Planning Commission • The applicant reported that they met with the members of the Ocean Park Civic League and Shore Drive Community Coalition on April 13, 2020 and January 28, 2021 to discuss the details of the requests. Details of the project are also posted on a website (www.marlinbayvb.com) by the applicant. • The applicant presented the proposal to the Bayfront Advisory Commission on November 19, 2020 and April 15, 2021. • Nine letters of support and 349 letters of opposition have been received by Staff.The letters of opposition noted concerns related to incompatible density and building height, traffic congestion, and stormwater issues. Multiple letters were received from the same individuals in opposition to these requests. • As required by the Zoning Ordinance,the public notice sign(s) was placed on the property on August 9, 2021. • As required by State Code,this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot Beacon on Sundays, August 22, 2021 and August 29, 2021. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notified regarding the request and the date of the Planning Commission public hearing on August 23, 2021. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 11 • This Staff report, as well as all reports for this Planning Commission's meeting, was posted on the Commission's webpage of www.vbgov.com/pc on September 2, 2021. City Council • As required by City Code,this item was advertised in the Virginian-Pilot Beacon on Sundays, October 3, 2021 and October 10, 2021. • As required by City Code, the adjacent property owners were notified regarding both the request and the date of the City Council's public hearing on October 4, 2021 • The City Clerk's Office posted the materials associated with the application on the City Council website of https://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/city-clerk/city-council/Documents/BookmarkedAgenda.pdf on October 15, 2021. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 12 Street Closure Exhibit — Clipper Bay Drive INDICATES CLIPPER BAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED , AREA TO 1489-28-9631 8VDIC4TES CLIPPER BAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED SHORE DRIVE AREA TO 7489-286483 U.S.ROUTE 60 INDICATES CLIPPER BAY VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED VDOT PROJ.0060-075-000.2175-09 AREA TO 1489-28-9831 N82.4277'E N82'4277"E 87 83' N82.4227'E INDICATES CLIPPER BAY _—H-146'TO_\\49 73' t8.60' ,' [ 1 DRIVE TO BE CLOSED MARLIN BAY c+\ ` /V AREA TO 1489-28-9308 DRIVE '' \ r- 1 I -__pc_ �� ; -usrT� IV* I o m ; JTR,LLCI I A D B 4239,P 1529 I A73 I 'PARCEL A' I i{ \ I M B 56,P 33 ZONED B2 I S�n \,33 GINN 1489-28.9831.0000 CO" I AID \ I . � i. ;o .. u,O cc; PARCELC-1 tteamOYo AlT b �.p \ f T.400 aaFT. m ^' \\ p\Z— \ / 0.176 ACRES o a \ o � � L \\ to \ \ \ I 1Wf \\ 15 ci \�'{y SHORE DRIVE AREA y\ C+�t9 n\ PROPERTIES,LLC s\ '' \ INST 200 58,18000976300 \ MB 5,P 197 \ \ y1 GPIN 1�8-6485-0000 \ �I V Oc \ 01 B \ PARCEL C.t lc* \N 2 d r+c ,b 11.161 SQ.FT. .P�, �� B�'Oe�r� �, O 0.256 ACRES \ �0'o �? Be \ �p, P? 4; LINE TABLE \ �' ci cid UNE BEARING LENGTH 2`\ _� L3 S07'79'S4-E 28 49'J /+/ \ Vr SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES /` &CURVE TABLE ‘,Ti1 Of SCALE 1'=40X ��'P I 1 0 40 8C u ERIC S. PATTERSON> REVISED: Lit. No. 2412 STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT OF s 26,414 SQUARE FEET PORTION OF 05/30/2021 pg_ _L I 08/11/2021 �� CLIPPER BAY DRIVE 4' (FORMERLY N ICMIMON 97 CRESCENT) 08/23/2021 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8,9 Page 13 Street Closure Exhibit — Clipper Bay Drive NIT JTR,LLC D 8 4238 P 1529 'PARCEL 8' M 8 56.P 33 ZONED 82 O GPIN 1489-28-9631-0000 "' PARCEL 0.2 h �� 5,894 SOFT. Z 0.138 ACRES 4i 6ClR 44. h th4.4. A.J� ti CI s4.2 ��s/` FF` .C S p Oir,Il, �D cA.e�R/VE 4,y f �` 1.�5!SQFT PARCEL a7... y~/MPR010e0) ROV106 `ED ,o Q I, `' o ws ACRES .{ :4‘ls 1° I � STREET 4^,� /b may;.�, ,�� �o `, or I ft* \o • r A. SHORE DRIVE AREA` Q-JQ' PROPERTIES.LLCiN tie MIST 20190912000773330 Q'Q% M8 113.P 14 ZONED POH1 y4�.'. GPIN 1489-28-9308-0000 Q/t' , 0�40 / SHORE DRIVE AREA \ / N� SUBDIVISION OF NIF �r q�\ .. PROPERTIES.LLC PARCEL A' 1 • INST 20080818000978300 M B 137.P 49 +Q`y h' ZONED NMI 4(/ t GPIN 1489-28-6485-0000 OC! LINE TABLE [-1INDRIVEDICATES CBE LIPPER BAY LINE TABLE AREATOO 28--966331 LNIIE BEARING LENGTH 1 INDICATES CLIPPER BAY DRIVE TO BE CLOSED LI S37 J52121,, 27 90' AREA TO t489 28 6485 L2 NI6'1275'E 23,00' F--- INDICATES CLIPPER BAY DRIVE TO 8E CLOSED AREA TO/489-28-9631 "CH Op INDICATES CLIPPER BAY I.� DRIVE TO BE CLOSED SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES �+� AREA TO 1489•28-9308 &CURVE TABLE , SCALE 1 •40 u fOC .S PA 'minoommon I L c No 2412 STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT REVISED: 40' 80- Op'l.Y'Zd OF: 16,414 SQUARE FEET PORTION Of 05/10/2021 ( A, CLIPPER BAY DRIVE 08/11/2021 (FORMERLY RICHMOND CRESCENT) 08/23/2021 (M 8 s, P 197) JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7, 8, 9 Page 14 Street Closure Exhibit — Ocean Tides Drive E SEE DETAIL R�v 1-1 O R E u 6o F WAY SHEET? Z•y,O6'E Su s RO IC RIG041 O o9 L2 L/ WIDTH P3 UBL 75-� 2 L1 '1 , /t. VARYOOT pR01 0�0 N62.4727.E �` # ( J PROPOSED 25'PUBLIC II DRAINAGE EASEMENT 1 W' j 6.43$SOFT. 0.126 ACRES INDICATES OCEAN TIDES 1 >ri % ia DRIVE TO BE CLOSED 1 OC'"'? 1 _ AREA TO 1459-2d-9631 ld OICATES OCEAN TIDES 1 l BAVUNER BUILDING [LC DRIVE TO BE CLOSED I o W u a INST 20080923001119430 l I AREA TO 1489.3d-2674 1 •V 2 Qi U 'PMBARCE203L A•Pa 1' 11 INDICATES PROPOSED �� p�tI ZONED 82 11 ITI ?S PLeuC j GPIN 1489 38?a74-0000 DRAINAGE EASEMENT y z N5. DEDICATION :iJTRLLCAlf . - D B 2708.P 725 D 8 4239.P 1529 ' PARCEL B" 1 PARCEL 0.2 TO t� ZOAIED B23 Z '20' il BAYUNER BUILDING.LLC Q TOTAL AREA•5.814 soft GPII 1489?d•9631-0000 UQ Z 1 i 1I 0.129 ACRES PARCEL 0.1 TO JTR.U.0 0, 1 1I en TOTAL AREA ELMSOST. j t i U 0.162ACREStv:H tiI V U5 LINE TABLE -1.1- "�� .,•3 �' w a11�• _ L pNE BEARING LENGTH pa. -- GL4I L I N62•277"E 11.517 ?0 20' S'RAN DEDICATION MB 113.P 14 12 N66.1672'E 3712' 25' Li Nvx277ad"E 3�s sa �o ' Z °'Z SUBDIVISION OF L4 S80.31 orw 26.55• O p f o%f 9 PARCEL'S I v , MB 137.P49 LS SOr17 9'E 4.91' 4 �tG/t a j \ 11 i 1 - aiC1.F J C5 R=919 72' Y CLIPPERCLIPPER RA (FORMERLY RICHMOND CRESCENT)E DRIVE IMPROVED) (M 8 5, P.197) (UNIMPROVED) (50'RIGHT•Of•WAV N (50 RIGHT.OF•WAV) CLF CHAIN LINK FENCE RAM RIGHT-OF-WAY �1,4TH Op `' SCALE 1'..s0 WF WOODEN FENCE O 40 �, SEE SHEET 2 FOR NOTES �,s 0 &CURVE TABLE u R*C s. PA RSON STREET CLOSURE EXHIBIT REVISED: Lk. No 2412 OF 212,252 SQUARE FEfT PORTION OF 05/10/2021 OS-Z3—�I OCEAN TIDES DRIVE 08/11/2021 !, C-?'f (FORMERLY ALLEGHANY AVENUE) ti nQ/7 a Hm 1 `P• (M.8 5. P 197)(D.8 2708, P 725) JTR, LLC&MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7,8, 9 Page 15 Proposed Conceptual Site Layout W N L. � s I .1 I c a Olpt," • ti c i s jitQ g 1 'T gA i i; t v I4 < a ,' i. .-•-.'.- ( -7,z,i;\ -7-7-• _, \ '. , _;;', ; AIIII4It ; ; 1 • L, , ,, ..- .--; 41° - -:-4-`'''.4.4f; . I. / , / gggg / 1 7) 'tea` . /• , ,f/ '' ♦/_ ),, ,L___,______Lr 2.; \.. . ,,, ,, • i ,--: :;:., , \ ,.,./...•, / , . s . .) 1 ., '`. 2-\ \......./ _, I : IL:iL. . . i ...Y ., y. ..„*....• ..' /d Y G W t /,-- - m O ° if .I` R' �_ ' 7C YYYM 1TR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 16 Proposed Conceptual Landscape Plan till :I ,s____ ,—, ___,,,04A4 y I . i 1 f!„ —i ,, 4 ' '- z I 25 t mutt-- t' 1/1 i i lip ili!I Iii.: i { . 11 vi i ii if vt ' 'I ° { s O. -----j\ 1 ' opt ____ ---' .: - kno () 0 0 1 . . - _ ® hi*, *— 'filar ! - qv:. ii.: _ s ,i4,-,,..,23 >--11-,,,I.,,,4 $4, \ I- __..._-__.,..c. - 1 o_ _), ._ , . , .., . 0-_,..w _..,, . 0 ,______ _ _ • _, ,e.'W. ^ I - ,.,'. i , , 4 , '%:t(1° . 4.4":*;t.'‘.- 1 ) /, t ^ ' `� 'Z. ' ,i,/111‘ Iti \ >\ It1 • ,I , ,�\ _i s` 1 a r - I +h S ',:I: :) ...., ig Z�1,' zap fg '� k EZP u • o a . sib £,a ngf pR tg /RI ft. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 17 Proposed Elevations Plan d - , 1 4 i g tlft . 5 I t - Q i 1 i7 I ct E / 5J Z d e W t: .„ _, t..1 C.) u.1 .A P , 2 \ A C , CC I I, - 1- - • • . .. i i L 1 1 in t. tu" 1 I, 1 I • f II )i in , ket . _ a lit -.: - r i 0- g 19 t Lt.1 --, ! 5_ L 'i ! • s a 1 • LCS' i • i 1 CT : e i E. t I.'t •0 1, i • rg •• ; 1 g 0' ;'i P•4 Fi 1 i v us A Z ;; i 3 i a i ... JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 18 Proposed Elevations Plan f --51i 3 e,r g - i — t 1!I i S 1 i s i t t i 7t1 $ 4 $1 E 4. i : w i 1 s t tit I F 5 I-7c CY 7 0 , K -• , , • u., • , ?. , z 1 0 / t7i tu u.; / 2 • - • 8 r 0 CC 0_ - LIE MI • f - CD CI - imo um ow No i r......, ., .._. ._,..... _..... __,, i ._ ...- L__I it___J . I am CD C...1 — am LJ 11=3 1111111111 .1_..1 . 1 tyR R R d E3 - , - _4 .,:_ I J. --- . .., II 9: 10.... ma.Z-, ......, ........ ...._ ....... 11.J IVANI now 7 a .• . „ 1 71 z , 6' ; ! E .1 , 4001IA0 74 01 Xt.4 i ,., I ,7, I , . . f it g ; t • • F OF t • " i" ! JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 19 Proposed Conceptual Lighting Plan ..__. -, tkI i . ' I Ii _---,,u , CI i 4IP-- ki .-- ,, t W -f---,--L.J i— -- 1 , --- — i _ ,,- . t f - . , (Q----'\, . _ -• . 1,- - . ...- , 1 , . : . _ L__ ,,:i:, 4* ) , ., , • .. ' • - / ‘• - a /,,, / / / Li .\ •' ., ,/ / ...., . . . , . . 1 .i..-- 1 L_ _, 1 _,•• itu ; ,---_ •., 1„a . '• 1‘," • ,mt , , --: !v. 1 . - .• ,-,1,_ t ,---- ., i i .. '-.. i 1 ••: i I ,,,- 1 - • / i . I N _.% - --- JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 20 Proposed Renderings -£ _ - : Y , -.rel..- ' .. •--- , : ` ;. -„ ys„4-1...t.4_, ,.. -ate. r"t, I a , ,r.. .�0 T • ,,- —j - _ . :-„ .rv! ,• •. ,bh — — _ _ .,;-, . .. r ' -�` "'NZ', • l. i: -,, __ _ _. t-. '''' ., ..:4?'"1:-;:s'-':**' -- . '-4.7:U.-',„4.4.,!Ad. 1ft..1:::$ iti,s_ .,:.,:.:1".,,tilli :"`.- • -. :-----__- V 1 .- _ �^ ?i s __ JTR, LLC&MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8,9 Page 21 Proposed Renderings 4 - - ,i":..:' . -''':........_is dtib: \t._' :'''''k If 4. 3le 00 " `J-mac.. - If 4. �. j ''".F,r— lb p� - d:.... .eI"i..ili :7� a1�, y �" ;1=:A II' 't ' r . Y •.....ram... - ea s - 1M�/I • fs r", /f� J ,,...- ( .t . '1-...' s" - iF- 1,; T II I I _ f ..: lot„„... ..4*v.ic w s JTR, LLC&MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7, 8, 9 Page 22 Proposed Renderings — Improvements Not Proffered I ir �' ►: 1 7 =�... -. • 11 • i• e —.se , '' '' .2 4. ;:/ ...4 �+.c Yam— AV( I .� 4 .7 00 .� �?. `4 r� Mil WI 111111•1•111 11 l � r •- IV PIIIIIIIIIP ki:i 1 - '11 . -- yY JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7,8,9 Page 23 Site Photos m1 1. ,ems 4 F y� f 5 (, X i 116111711141LL '- . lew .., , . ' . "y am 7. ' +, a JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 24 Site Photos �. , y jYT*+u'a` •;7s, ,�.�,$ a,,R4 i, E i g"3.Ke - .. • 4k JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 25 Site Photos k IMP • f �: / - ''' ..v.___Ti —1...K.B...:‘,-.-,_. f _ �1 .:,• , .-.1 •!XII Attri - rc 7,4 , ' ''' --,:':')i----i47'''';'•.4W'''' ,.=.`:;:','.4'.-.A 7'.':',-- --6-;',:',.,.'-'.--7. '-,',i,.,,•;'r,. n4.',-;-:::::V.- ,$' 2-...,.;,',:,.'i';'i;;,, ,:,.:-.' --.= 7a. t 4' fr JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 26 Disclosure Statement NIB Virginia Beach APPLICANT'S NAME MP Shore LLC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORM The completion and submission of this form is required for all applications that pertain to City real estate matters or to the development and/or use of property in the City of Virginia Beach requiring action by the City Council or a board, commission, or other body appointed by the City Council. Such applications and matters include, but are not limited to, the following: Acquisition of Property Disposition of City Modification of by City Property Conditions or Proffers Alternative Economic Development Compliance, Special Investment Program Nonconforming Use Exception for (EDIP) Changes Board of Zoning Encroachment Request Rezoning Appeals Certificate of Floodplain Variance Appropriateness Street Closure (Historic Review Board) Franchise Agreement Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Lease of City Property Subdivision Variance Board Conditional Use Permit License Agreement Wetlands Board 4 The disclosures contained in this form are necessary to inform public officials who may vote on the application as to whether they have a conflict of interest under Virginia law. • 0 SECTION 1 / APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FOR CITY USE ONLY/All disclosures must be updated two(2)weeks prior to any Page 1 of 7 Planning Commission and City Council meeting that pertains to the applicatioriii, APPUCANT NOTIFIED OF HEARING DATE. El NO CHANGES AS OF DATE ® REVISIONS SUBMITTED 10.11.2021 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 27 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach ❑ Check here if the APPLICANT IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. Sib, Check here if the APPLICANT /S a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. (A) List the Applicant's name:MP Shore LLC If an LLC, list all member's names: J&L Property Holdings LLC: John H. Peterson III and Lucky C. Peterson, Members McLeskey&Associates LLC : F. Wayne McLeskey, Jr. QTIP Marital Trust, Member Cheryl McLeskey, Trustee etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Terry/Peterson Residential Companies, L.L.C. Virginia Beach Fishing Center, L.L.C. See next page for information pertaining to footnotes' and 2 • • SECTION 2 / PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete Section 2 only if property owner is different from Applicant. ❑ Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, AND THEN, complete the following. (A) List the Property Owner's name: If an LLC, list the member's names: Page 2 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 28 Disclosure Statement q\B Virginia Beach If a Corporation, list the names ofall officers, directors, members, trustees, etc. below (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary I or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Property Owner: (Attach list if necessary) 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 entityrelationship" means "a relationshi other than p, parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities. resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities."See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.Code§ 2.2-3101. • • SECTION 3. SERVICES DISCLOSURE Are any of the following services being provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the Property. If the answer to any item is YES, please identify the firm or individual providing the service: IF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT ARE DIFFERENT, EACH MUST COMPLETE THE SECTION SEPERATELY Page 3 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8,9 Page 29 Disclosure Statement APPLICANT Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) Accounting and/or preparer of your tax return ® ❑ Architect/Landscape Architect/ Cox Kliewer&Co,PC Land Planner Contract Purchaser(if other than I51 the Applicant)-identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed X purchaser of the subject property (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) n n Construction Contractors Terry/Peterson Residential Cos,LLC Xn Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Timmons Group Financing(include current Greystone&Co,LLC ❑X ❑ mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) Xl ❑ Legal Services Williams Mullen;Wilcox&Savage-Lisa M.Murphy Real Estate Brokers / Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have n (\/' an interest in the subject land or any proposed development J� contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 4 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 30 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach CERTI FICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this Application. it John H.Peterson,III 4.26.21 APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME DATE Manager of MP Shore LLC Page 5 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 31 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach Check here if the APPLICANT IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. Check here if the APPLICANT IS a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. (A) List the Applicant's name:MP Shore LLC If an LLC,list all member's names: J&L Property Holdings, LLC McLeskey&Associates LLC If a CORPORATION, list the the names of all officers, directors, members, trustees, etc.below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary� or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Terry/Peterson Residential Companies,L.L.C. Virginia Beach Fishing Center, L.L.C. See next page for information pertaining to footnotest and 2 1 • SECTION 2 / PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete Section 2 only if property owner is different from Applicant. ❑ Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT a corporation, partnership,firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. KA Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS a corporation, partnership,firm, business,or other unincorporated organization,AND THEN,complete the following. (A) List the Property Owner's name:Bayliner Building,LLC If an LLC,list the member's names:F.Wayne McLeskey,Jr. QTIP Marital Trust Page 2 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 32 Disclosure Statement AuIMntlNpn ID:22E27,M 0D05J075ii56D.A001E705EE VS Virginia Beach If a Corporation, list the names ofall officers,directors, members,trustees, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Property Owner: (Attach list if necessary) See Attached. 1 "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than S0 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 entityrelationship" means "a relationship, other than p" parent subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.Code§ 2.2-3101. • • SECTION 3. SERVICES DISCLOSURE Are any of the following services being provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the Property. If the answer to any item is YES, please identify the firm or individual providing the service: IF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT ARE DIFFERENT, EACH MUST COMPLETE THE SECTION SEPERATELY Page 3 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8,9 Page 33 Disclosure Statement APPLICANT Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) Inl Accounting and/or preparer of /`� your tax return IXI Architect/Landscape Architect/ Cox Kliewer&Co.PC Land Planner Contract Purchaser(if other than nX the Applicant)- identify purchaser — and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed X purchaser of the subject property (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) XI I Construction Contractors Terry/Peterson Residential Cos,LLC I>I Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Timmons Group Financing (include current Greystone&Co,LLC IX mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) X I I Legal Services Williams Mullen;Sykes,Bourdon Real Estate Brokers/ u' I Agents/Realtors for current and u anticipated future sales of the subject property • •SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have I I IXI an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 4 of 7 JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 34 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled foi public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this Application. _ _ 1 John H.Peterson,III 4.26.21 APPLICANTS SIGNATURE PRINT NAME DATE Manager of MP Shore LLC 1 Page 5 of 7 JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 35 Disclosure Statement OWNER Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) IXIn Accounting and/or preparer of Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP your tax return UI5i Architect/Landscape Architect/ Land Planner Contract Purchaser(if other than the Applicant)- identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed I5/I purchaser of the subject property �/�� (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) 11 I^I Construction Contractors I I X Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Financing(include current ( I 71 mortgage holders and lenders I I/�I ected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) X n Legal Services Wilks,Alper,Harwood 8 McIntyre,P C Real Estate Brokers / Agents/Realtors for current and I I/\' anticipated future sales of the subject property • • SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have r\,I an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 6 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 36 Disclosure Statement 113 Virginia Beach a CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been Ischeduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this Ap ication. 1 Viel-J-Lvaasi4 VIRA.Gve PROPERTY OWNS SIGNATUR PRINT NAME AT A 1 Page 7 of 7 JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 37 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach ElCheck here if the APPLICANT IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. Check here if the APPLICANT IS a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. (A) List the Applicant's name:MP Shore LLC If an LLC,list all member's names: J& L Property Holdings,LLC McLeskey&Associates LLC If a CORPORATION,list the the names of all officers,directors, members, trustees, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Terry/Peterson Residential Companies,L.L.C. Virginia Beach Fishing Center,L.L.C. See next page for information pertaining to footnotes and 2 • • SECTION 2 / PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete Section 2 only if nronerty owner is different from Apnlicant. ❑ Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT a corporation, partnership,firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. ® Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS a corporation, partnership,firm, business,or other unincorporated organization, AND THEN,complete the following. (A) List the Property Owner's name:JTR,LLC If an LLC,list the member's names:Randall H.Browning,Terry L.Browning&James R.Browning,Jr. Page 2 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8,9 Page 38 Disclosure Statement Aut.nliLpn ID.22E228B1 99133J815•5156-D6ABBCE704EE Virginia Beach If a Corporation, list the names ofall officers, directors, members,trustees, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Property Owner: (Attach list if necessary) See Attached. t "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation.' See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code§2.2 3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship' means a relationship, other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when (i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,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. • • SECTION 3. SERVICES DISCLOSURE Are any of the following services being provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the Property. If the answer to any item is YES, please identify the firm or individual providing the service: IF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT ARE DIFFERENT, EACH MUST COMPLETE THE SECTION SEPERATELY Page 3 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 39 Disclosure Statement \fi3 APPLICANT Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets it needed) X Accounting and/or preparer of your tax return X n Architect/Landscape Architect/ Cox Kliewer&Co,PC Land Planner Contract Purchaser(if other than nX the Applicant)- identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed n n purchaser of the subject property (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) 7 I I Construction Contractors Terry/Peterson Residential Cos,LLC IX' I I Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Timmons Group Financing(include current Greystone&Co,LLC X I mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) IXI I I Legal Services Williams Mullen,Sykes,Bourdon Real Estate Brokers/ II X Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property • •SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have IXI an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 4 gt 7 JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 40 Disclosure Statement Virginia Beach CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this Application. _,_ CJ 1 �—am- John H.Peterson,III 4.26.21 —---- - ---APPLICANT S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME _ - DATE Manager of MP Shore LLC Page 5 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 41 Disclosure Statement M^f OWNER Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) Accounting and/or preparer of Cherry Bekaert your tax return IJ n Architect/Landscape Architect/ Land Planner Contract Purchaser(if other than Nithe Applicant)-identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed ❑ XI purchaser of the subject property XI (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) Construction Contractors 7 Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Financing(include current IXI mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) IXI Legal Services Faggert&Frieden.P.C. Real Estate Brokers/ �vl Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have X an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 6 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 42 Disclosure Statement 1 CERTIFICATION: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this A lica ' n. P OP OWN R'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAMIF DATE Page 7 of 7 JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 43 Disclosure Statement N.„,.ii3 Virginia Beach ❑ Check here if the APPLICANT IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. N Check here if the APPLICANT IS a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. (A) List the Applicant's name:MP Shore LLC — If an LLC, list all member's names: J&L Property Holdings, LLC McLeskey&Associates LLC If a CORPORATION, list the the names of all officers, directors, members, trustees, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary I or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Applicant: (Attach list if necessary) Terry/Peterson Residential Companies,L.L.C. Virginia Beach Fishing Center, L.L.C. See next page for information pertaining to footnotest and 2 ♦ • SECTION 2 / PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete Section 2 only if Property owner is different from Applicant. Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business,or other unincorporated organization. ® Check here if the PROPERTY OWNER IS a corporation, partnership,firm, business,or other unincorporated organization,AND THEN,complete the following. (A) List the Property Owner's name:Shore Drive Area Properties,Lid If an LLC,list the member's names:F.Wayne McLeskey,Jr.QTIP Marital Trust Page 2 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 44 Disclosure Statement „., 1 m:22E27I ...n.w„aasr.owwCEMEE Niii Virginia Beach If a Corporation, list the names ofall officers,directors, members,trustees, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) (B) List the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary 1 or affiliated business entity 2 relationship with the Property Owner: (Attach list if necessary) See Attached. I "Parent-subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code§2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship' means `a relationship, other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va.Code§ 2.2-3101. • • SECTION 3. SERVICES DISCLOSURE Are any of the following services being provided in connection with the subject of the application or Any business operating or to be operated on the Property. If the answer to any item is YES, please identify the firm or individual providing the service: IF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT ARE DIFFERENT, EACH MUST COMPLETE THE SECTION SEPERATELY Page 3 of 7 JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 45 Disclosure Statement Nfi3 APPLICANT Virginia Beach f YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) nAccounting and/or preparer of your tax return (XI Architect/Landscape Architect/ Cox Kliewer&Co,PC Land Planner Contract Purchaser(if other than X the Applicant)- identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed 151( purchaser of the subject property (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) XI I Construction Contractors Terry/Peterson Residential Cos,LLC X Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Timmons Group Financing(include current Greystone&Co,LLC IXI I I mortgage holders and lenders selected or being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) IXI [ ] Legal Services Wi/hams Mullen;Sykes.Bourdon Real Estate Brokers / I I X Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property ' •SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have I I an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? If yes, what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Paoe 4 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 46 Disclosure Statement 'NB Virginia Beach CERTIFICATION.: I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true, and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information 'provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this Ap lication. _ DATE John H.Peterson,III 4.26.21 APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE _ PRINT NAME _ Manaeer of MP Shore I.I.0 Page 5 of 7 1TR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 47 Disclosure Statement Ok OWNER Virginia Beach YES NO SERVICE PROVIDER(use additional sheets if needed) XAccounting and/or preparer of Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP your tax return nV Architect/Landscape Architect/ `,\ Land Planner Contract Purchaser(if other than the Aoolicant)-identify purchaser and purchaser's service providers Any other pending or proposed n n purchaser of the subject property (identify purchaser(s)and purchaser's service providers) nConstruction Contractors I^I Engineers/Surveyors/Agents Financing(include current I I L<I mortgag selectedeor holders and lenders U being considered to provide financing for acquisition or construction of the property) X I I Legal Services Wilks,Alper,Harwood&McIntyre,P.0 Real Estate Brokers/ n X Agents/Realtors for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property -4 SECTION 4. KNOWN INTEREST BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE YES NO Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have I I Inl an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action? If yes,what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Page 6 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 48 Disclosure Statement \/13 Virginia Beach rCERTIFICATION: t.1 certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the Planning Commission, Council, VBDA meeting, or meeting of any public body or committee in connection with this A 'cation. 44.1.344 lti/L-C. s/'� s! PROPERTY OWNS SIGNATU PRINT NAME AT Page 7 of 7 JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 49 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement e., Planning&Community .11evelo s ment.. The disclosures contained in this form are necessary to inform public officials who may vote on the application as to whether they have a conflict of interest under Virginia law. The completion and submission of this form is required for all applications that pertain to City real estate matters or to the development and/or use of property in the City of Virginia Beach requiring action by the City Council or a City board,commission or other body. Applicant Disclosure Applicant Name JTR,LLC Does the applicant have a representative? ■Yes 0 No • If yes,list the name of the representative. MP Shore,LLC,Attn:John Peterson Ill Is the applicant a corporation,partnership,firm,business,trust or an unincorporated business?I Yes 0 No • If yes,list the names of all officers,directors,members,trustees,etc.below. (Attach a list if necessary) Randall H.Browning,Terry L Browning,James R.Browning,Jr. • If yes,list the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary'or affiliated business entity'relationship with the applicant. (Attach a list if necessary) See attached list. '"Parent-subsidiary relationship"means"a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and local Government Conflict of Interests Act,VA.Code§2.2-3101. 2"Affiliated business entity relationship"means"a relationship,other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(I)one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or(iii)there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets;the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities,resources or personnel on a regular basis;or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code§2.2-3101. Wage JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 50 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement %wink,w..r, Planning&Commune > .. elotis• t — - • Known Interest by Public Official or Employee Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action?❑Yes MI No • If yes,what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? Applicant Services Disclosure 1. Does the applicant have any existing financing(mortgage,deeds of trust,cross-collateralization,etc)or are they considering any financing in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? ❑Yes ® No • If yes,identify the financial institutions. 2. Does the applicant have a real estate broker/agent/realtor for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property? ❑Yes ®No • If yes,identify the real estate broker/realtor. 3. Does the applicant have services for accounting and/or preparation of tax returns provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?®Yes ❑ No • If yes,identify the firm or individual providing the service Cherry Bekaert LLP 4. Does the applicant have services from an architect/landscape architect/land planner provided in cornection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?®Yes ❑No • If yes,identify the firm or individual providing the service. Timmons Group _ 5. Is there any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property?0 Yes ®No • If yes,identify the purchaser ano purchaser's service providers 2I JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 51 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement Cu t!(t"4yI�.iA llo Planning&Commun. Development 6. Does the applicant have a construction contractor in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?®Yes 0 No • If yes,identify the construction contractor Terry Peterson Residential Companies,LLC 7. Does the applicant have an engineer/surveyor/agent in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?®Yes 0 No • If yes,identify the engineer/surveyor/agent. Timmons Group 8. Is the applicant receiving legal services in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?®Yes 0 No • If yes,identify the name of the attorney or firm providing legal services. Faggart and Frieden PC Applicant Signature I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing,I am responsible for updating the Information provided herein two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission,City Council,VBDA,CBPA,Wetlands Board or any public body or committee in connection with this application. Applica t Signa e Terry Lee Browning_Mira jng.Member Print Name and Title 11/12/2020 Date is the applicant also the owner of the subject property? 0 Yes 0 No • If yes,you do not need to fill out the owner disclosure statement. FOR CITY USE ONLY/All disclosures must be updated two 12)weeks prior to any Planning Commission and City Council meeting that pertains to the applications No changes as of Date Signature 1 Print Name _ - 3 1 i JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 52 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement I/13 fy. •ors -.r.` CtU•rtIWnia a.A _ Planning&Corrununity Development Owner Disclosure Owner Name Bayliner Building, LLC Name JTK,LLC Is the Owner a corporation,partnership,firm,business,trust or an unincorporated business?k Yes ❑No • I'yes,list the names of all officers,directors,members,trustees,etc.below (Attach a list if necessary) F. Wayne McLeskey, Jr.,QTIP Marital Trust,Cheryl McLeskey,Trustee • If yes,list the businesses that have a parent-subsidiary'or affiliated business entity°relationship with the Owner (Attach a list if necessary) Attached. Known Interest by Public Official or Employee Does an official or employee of the City of Virginia Beach have an interest in the subject land or any proposed development contingent on the subject public action?❑Yes x No • If yes,what is the name of the official or employee and what is the nature of the interest? "Parent-subsidiary relationship"means"a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,VA Code§2.2.3101 "Affiliated business entity relationship"means'a relationship,other than parent-subsidiary relationship,that exists when(i(one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity,(ii)a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity,or(iii)there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities;there are common or commingled funds or assets,the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities,resources or personnel on a regular basis,or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act,Va. Code§2 2-3101. sl JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 53 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement \\13 City.,il'Gw iBeak Planning&Community Development Owner Services Disclosure 1. Does the Owner have any existing financing(mortgage,deeds of trust,cross-collateralization,etc)or are they considering any financing in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? ❑Yes XNo • If yes,identify the financial institutions. 2. Does the Owner have a real estate broker/agent/reactor for current and anticipated future sales of the subject property? ❑Yes XNo • If yes,identify the real estate broker/realtor. 3. Does the Owner have services for accounting and/or preparation of tax returns provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?X Yes 0 No • If yes,identify the firm or individual providing the service. Dixon Hughes Goodman LIP 4. Does the Owner have services from an architect/landscape architect/land planner provided in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?0 Yes X No • If yes,identify the firm or individual providing the service. 5. Is there any other pending or proposed purchaser of the subject property?❑Yes X No • If yes,identify the purchaser and purchaser's service providers. 6. Does the Owner have a construction contractor in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes X NO • If yes,identify the construction contractor. 7. Does the Owner have an engineer/surveyor/agent In connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property?❑Yes X No • If yes,identify the engineer/surveyor/agent. 6( JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7,8,9 Page 54 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement City ofrbrin.i hn'» Planning&Community Development 8 Is the Owner receiving legal services in connection with the subject of the application or any business operating or to be operated on the property? Yes ❑No • If yes,identify the name of the attorney or firm providing legal services Wilks,Alper, Harwood&McIntyre P.C. Owner Signature I certify that all of the information contained in this Disclosure Statement Form is complete,true,and accurate. I understand that. upon receipt of notification that the application has been scheduled for public hearing,I am responsible for updating the information provided herein two weeks prior to the meeting of Planning Commission,City Council,VBDA,CBPA,Wetlands Board or any public body or committee in connection with this application. Owner Signature Print Name and Title 4/1 /Z 0^7.43 Date — --- ---------— - 7i JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 55 Disclosure Statement 2901 S.Lynnhaven Road P 757.213.6679 TIMMONS GROUP Suite 200 F 757.340.1415 Virginia Beach,VA 23452 wrrvrrtitrnolle Property Information Parcel GPIN#14892864850000 Address:none assigned Land area(acres or square feet):2.026 acres City Council Election District:District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning PDH1 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ. N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone AE and Zone X(shaded) Property Owner Name:Shore Drive Area Properties LLC;Willie Wilcox Property Owner Address:2859 Virginia Beach Blvd.Suite 106:Virginia Beach.VA 23452 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)340-1251 Property Owner Email:c,iliie,a mcieskel Parcel GPIN#14892882470000 Address.none assigned Land area(acres or square feet):0.062 acres City Council Election District:District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning:PDH1 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ: N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone AE and Zone X(shaded) Property Owner Name:Shore Drive Area Properties LLC:Willie Wilcox Property Owner Address:2859 Virginia Beach Blvd,Suite 106:Virginia Beach,VA 23452 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)340-1251 Property Owner Email:willie@mcleskey.com Parcel GPIN#14892893080000 Address.none assigned Land area(acres or square feet):0.116 acres City Council Election District:District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning:PDH1 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ: N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone X(shaded) Property Owner Name:Shore Drive Area Properties LLC:Willie Wilcox Property Owner Address:2859 Virginia Beach Blvd.Suite 106:Virginia Beach.VA 23452 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)340-1251 Property Owner Email:willie©mcleskey.com ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 56 Disclosure Statement Parcel GPIN#14892896310000 Address:3829 Shore Drive Land area(acres or square feet):2.079 acres City Council Election District:District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning:B2 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ. N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone AE Property Ownei Name:JTR,LLC;Terry Browning Property Owner Address:2009 Thomas Bishop Lane:Virginia Beach,VA 23454 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)630-1951 Property Owner Email:teambrowning15@aol.com Parcel GPIN#1 4 8 93826 740 0 00 Address 3785 Shore Drive Land area(acres or square feet):1.040 acres City Council Election District:District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning:B2 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ: N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone AE and Zone X(shaded) Property Owner Name:Bayliner Building LLC.Willie Wilcox Property Owner Address:2150 W Great Neck Road:Virginia Beach,VA 23452 Property Owner Phone Number:(757)340-1251 Property Owner Email:willie©mcleskey.com Parcel GPIN#14893846930000 Address none assigned Land area(acres or square feet):0.114 acres City Council Election District:District 4-Bayside Existing Zoning:PDH1 Overlay District:Yes-Shore Drive Strategic Growth Area(SGA):No AICUZ N/A Watershed:Chesapeake Bay Special Flood Hazard Area:Zone AE Property Owner Name:Shore Drive Area Properties LLC:Willie Wilcox Property Owner Address:2859 Virginia Beach Blvd,Suite 106;Virginia Beach.VA 23452 Property Owner Phone Number.(757)340-1251 Property Owner Email:willie©mcleskey.com JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 57 Disclosure Statement F.Wayne McLeskey,Jr..QTIP Marital Trust(QTIP) Entities(Companies) Owner co# name type 02 WASHINGTON SQUARE TOWNHOUSES LLC LLC QTIP 03 Bel-Aire LLC LLC QTIP 04 Virginia Beach Fishing Center LLC LLC QTIP 05 FWM RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTIES,LLC LLC QTIP 06 2859 VBB,LLC LLC QTIP 09 Elizabeth City Development Company LLC LLC QTIP 11 Elizabeth City Airport Industrial Park,Inc. 5 Corporation QTIP 12 LDSM Properties LLC LLC QTIP 16 Mortons Baye LLC LLC QTIP 17 J&W Investors,LLC LLC QTIP 18 RADCLIFFE TOWNHOUSES,LLC LLC QTIP 19 Cepco LLC LLC QTIP 20 COLONY PINES APARTMENTS,LLC LLC QTIP 21 Coastal Investors LLC LLC QTIP 27 Norfolk-Virginia Beach Airport LLC LLC QTIP 29 2648 VBB,LLC LLC QTIP 30 Lynnhaven Shopping Center,LLC(dba MarketSquare)-Div.20 LLC QTIP 33 Itiverwalk LLC LLC QTIP 35 NEWTOWN CONVENIENCE CENTER,LLC LLC QTIP 38 Front Street Investors LLC LLC QTIP 40 MGM Associates partnership QTIP(99%) 41 Furberfax LLC LLC QTIP 53 AIR TACO,LLC LLC QTIP 54 103,LLC LLC QTIP 85 BAYLINER BUILDING.LLC LLC QTIP 87 LITTLE NECK COMMERCIAL PROPERTY,LLC LLC QTIP 90 McLeskey&Associates,LLC LLC QTIP 91 SHORE DRIVE AREA PROPERTIES LLC LLC QTIP 92 LYNNHAVEN AREA PROPERTIES,LLC LLC QTIP 93 LITTLE CREEK ROAD PROPERTIES,LLC LIE QTIP 94 RUDEE HEIGHTS PROPERTIES,LLC LLC QTIP 55 Croupier LLC LLC QTIP [\Users\wtwi\Documents\Candy rel\property Clevelopmenls\Slope nave[opy of company l Isom?,3,30.20 summary.xisx sheet] JTR, LLC & MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6, 7, 8, 9 Page 58 Next Steps • Upon receiving a recommendation from Planning Commission,this request will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. Staff will inform the applicant and/or their representative of the date of the hearing in the upcoming days. • Following City Council's decision,the applicant will receive a decision letter from Staff. • Once the conditions of approval are in place and/or completed,the applicant must contact the Zoning Division of the Planning Department to obtain verification that the conditions have been met. Contact the Zoning Division at 757-385-8074. • If the request requires land disturbance and/or a subdivision of property, please contact the Development Services Center(DSC)to discuss next steps for site plan/plat review. Contact the DSC at 757-385-4621 or the Development Liaison Team at 757-385-8610. • Please note that 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 approvals allowed by this application 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. JTR, LLC& MP Shore, LLC Agenda Items 6,7, 8,9 Page 59 MP SHORE, LLC,a Virginia limited liability company BAYLINER BUILDING, LLC,a Virginia limited liability company SHORE DRIVE AREA PROPERTIES, LLC,a Virginia limited liability company JTR, LLC,a Virginia limited liability company THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia THIS AGREEMENT,made this 27th day of April,2021,by and between MP SHORE,LLC,a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the first part; BAYLINER BUILDING, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, party of the second part; SHORE DRIVE AREA PROPERTIES,LLC,a Virginia limited liability company,Grantor,party of the third part;JTR,LLC, a Virginia limited liability company,Grantor,party of the fourth part;and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia,Grantor,party of the fifth part, and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee,party of the sixth part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,the party of the second part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 1.04 acres, which is more particularly described as Parcel A in Exhibit"A"attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcel along with the other parcels described herein and in Exhibit "A"are herein collectively referred to as the"Property";and WHEREAS,the party of the third part is the owner of three(3)parcels of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia,containing a total of approximately GPIN'S: PARCEL A: 1489-38-2674-0000 PARCEL B-1: 1489-28-9308-0000 PARCEL B-2: 1489-28-8247-0000 PARCEL C: 1489-28-6485-0000 PARCEL D: 1489-28-9631-0000 Prepared by: Lisa M.Murphy,Esquire VSB#39111 Willcox&Savage,P.C. 440 Monticello Blvd.,Ste.2200 Norfolk,Virginia 23510 2.204 acres, which are more particularly described as Parcels B-1, B-2 and C on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said parcels along with the other parcels described herein and in Exhibit"A"are herein collectively referred to as the"Property";and WHEREAS,the party of the fourth part is the owner of a parcel of property located in the Bayside District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 2.079 acres, which is more particularly described as Parcel D on Exhibit"A"attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said parcel along with the other parcels described herein and in Exhibit"A" are herein collectively referred to as the"Property"; and WHEREAS,the parties of the second part and fourth part have submitted an application to Discontinue,Close and Abandon a portion of that certain public street currently owned by the party of the fifth part, known as Ocean Tides Drive running between Parcel A and Parcel D containing approximately 0.281 acres of land,in order to acquire their respective shares of such street and incorporate the same into their respective parcels,which are collectively referred to herein as the"Property"; and WHEREAS,the parties of the second part and third part have submitted an application to Discontinue,Close and Abandon a portion of that certain public street,owned by the party of the fifth part,known as Clipper Bay Drive running between Parcel A and Parcels C and B-1 containing approximately 0.606 acres of land, in order to acquire their respective shares of such street and incorporate the same into their respective parcels, which are collectively referred to herein as the"Property"; and WHEREAS,the party of the first part, as the contract purchaser of the parcels described in Exhibit "A", 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 Classifications of the Properties from unconditional B-2 Community Business District and PD-H1 Planned Unit Development District to Conditional B-4 Resort Commercial District(SD); and WHEREAS,the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS,the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to permit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not 2 generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's 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, in addition to the regulations provided for the B-4 Zoning District and the Shore Drive Overlay District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance,the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development,operation,and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors,their successors,personal representatives,assigns,grantee,and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is developed, it shall be as a 197 unit multifamily residential community substantially in accordance with the exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY - VIRGINIA BEACH,VA, Conceptual Layout-April 01, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group,which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development(the"Concept Plan"). 2. When the Property is developed, vehicular ingress and egress to the Property shall be limited to one (1) access from Shore Drive and one (1) access from Marlin Bay Drive substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. 3. When the Property is developed the MARLIN BAY apartment building shall have the architectural design, appearance and exterior building materials substantially as depicted and described on the exhibits labeled "MARLIN BAY NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - SHORE DRIVE,VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA, PROPOSED ELEVATION - EXTERIOR MATERIALS", dated April 23, 2021, prepared by Cox, Kliewer& Company, P.C., which have been exhibited to 3 the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development(the"Elevations"). 4. All lighting on the Property shall be limited to that necessary for security and safety purposes and to comply with applicable laws and shall be shielded to prevent glare and spillover onto adjacent properties. 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. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded,said instrument shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be 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; 4 (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator,made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia,and indexed in the name of the Grantors and the Grantee. [THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SIGNATURES AND SEALS ON FOLLOWING PAGES.] 5 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: MP Shore,LLC,a Virginia limited liability company By: z— (SEAL) John I-1:14terson,III, Manager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 011 day of April, 2021,by John H. Peterson,III, Manager of MP Shore,LLC,a Virginia limited liability company. U ; 11Q,, c. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 10151 A pa L Notary Registration Number: -} Sly103tsk VICKI NOWAK BRACEY NOTARY PUBLIC REG.17888832 COMMONWEALTH OF YVIt3IMA 6 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: Bayliner Building, LLC,a Virgi '- imited liability company By: (SEAL) William Wilcox, , anager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 21 day of April, 2021, by William A. Wilcox, II, Manager of Bayliner Building, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. Cf&A.-4.-c-LA-/ . Notary Publi My Commission Expires: 1D3 (311Z-02* ,,,,,,III.,,,, Notary Registration Number: (p ��•�'� CIA 31. •,,% 2 MY C�•; % COMMISSION 77: n ' NUMBER Q 281658 : 2 '�'FgLTH•01- 0%`�: 7 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: Shore Drive Area Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited liability corn.-ny By: A �iind (SEAL) William .. •' ilcox, I anager STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this V' day of April, 2021, by William A. Wilcox, II, Manager of Shore Drive Area Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor. w (st • Notary Public My Commission Expires: d313t\2j?..-14 Notary Registration Number: „.$1/S' , ,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,pRY p' • ' • MY oomm UMBE foN 2er65R Q : 8 • • '•.,7�1 LTH of�.....,, 8 I WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: JTR,a Virginia-limited liability company By: (SEAL) Ter�,y�l.. rowning,Me er STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this t day of April, 2021, by Terry L. Browning,Member of JTR,LLC,a Vir:ini. ited liability company,Grantor. lalA4 c4-Aa Ot. - 11,t,:s Notary Public My Commission Expires: l 1Z_02-.'-t R • ....,�'ti •,, Notary Registration Number: I See. Y PV•.;' '•, r. :0 `/4 •s ▪ 2 M' • 0, NUi6P1 S t MBER ▪ 1 ▪ 281658 •� � i „� a 9 WITNESS the following signature and seal: Grantor: ATTES CITY O A BEACH,� VIRGINIA Signa e—C 1 City Manager/Authorized D gnee of City Manager CITY'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to wit: I,jervitc--e r f\f rut. CI r.J.--rl`e a Notary Public in and for the City and state aforesaid, do hereby certify that \2 ^a\cl H, W \\`o.ms, CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO §2-154 OF THE CITY CODE,whose name is signed to the foregoing Agreement,bearing date the day of -ptpc ‘\ ,2021,has acknowledged the same before me in my City and State aforesaid. /She is personally known to me. GIVEN under my hand this I a day of Pt"?r\` , 21. Commonwealth Of Virginia Jennifer Anne Grundler-Notary Public Commission No.70371 ary bli My Commission Expires ✓ .p.:D.- My Commission Expires: 5 .\ 03,D.3- Notary Registration Number: _"1 1 e7 10 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to wit: I, .�,�, ( Ann teA6-"_,,,i\-(.c-Notary Public in and for the City and sta aforesaid, do hereby certify that itC,-,,,,, ac,, r Y r-,--C City Clerk for the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia,whose name is signed to the foregoing Agreement,bearing date thejday ofr A ,2021,has acknowledged the same before me in my City and State aforesaid. She is personally known to me. GIVEN under my hand his PkIM day of . �. ,2021. 'Commission Pub 'c CommonwealthOfVirginia Jennifer Anne Grundler-Notary Public Expires: 5 Commission N , Notary Registration Number: My Commission Ex x pices res APPR VED AS TO FORM: Signature—City Attorney 11 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A: GPIN: 1489-38-2674-0000(Bayliner Building,LLC-1.04 Ac.) All that certain tract,piece or parcel of land,with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying,being and situate in the Bayside Borough of the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia,and known,numbered and designated as PARCEL'A-1'on that certain plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING RIGHT-OF-WAY CLOSING OF A PORTION OF SHORE DRIVE ADJACENT TO PARCEL 'A', BLOCK 35, SECTION D, OCEAN PARK, BAYSIDE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR F. WAYNE McLESKEY, JR., SCALE 1"=25', DATED: 9-19-89", made by Langley and McDonald, a Professional Corporation, Engineers - Planners - Surveyors, Virginia Beach- Williamsburg,Virginia,which said Plat is duly recorded in the Clerks Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia,in Map Book 203,at Page 6. IT BEING the same property conveyed to Bayliner Building, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company by deed from F. Wayne McLeskey,Jr., dated September 15, 2008 and recorded September 23, 2008 as Instrument No. 20080923001119430. PARCEL B-1: GPIN: 1489-28-9308-0000(Shore Drive Area Properties,LLC) All those certain lots, pieces or parcels of land, together with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying, situate and being in Bayside Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated and described as Part of Lot 14, in Block 34 and Lot 11 and Part of Lot 12, in Block 42,on a certain plat entitled,"Plat,Section D of Ocean Park,Portion of the Property owned by Ocean Park Corporation", dated March 20, 1917, made by P.F. Mueller, C.E., and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia,in Map Book 5,at Page 197; reference to which plat is made for a more particular description of said lots. LESS, SAVE AND EXCEPT that portion of the aforesaid Lot 14 dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia for street and highway purposes as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF MARINERS LANDING ON THE LYNNHAVEN SECTION ONE" dated October 197 4 made by Marsh and Basgier, Inc., PC recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 113, at page 14. LESS, SAVE AND EXCEPT those portions of the aforesaid Lot 11 and Lot 12 subdivided into and made a part of"PARCEL A" as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF MARINERS LANDING ON THE LYNNHAVEN SECTION ONE" dated October 1974 made by Marsh and Basgier, Inc., PC recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Map Book 113 at page 14. 12 PARCEL B-2: GPIN: 1489-28-8247-0000(Shore Drive Area Properties,LLC) ALL THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying, situate and being in Bayside Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia,designated and described as Lot 16,in Block 42,on a certain plat entitled,"PLAT,SECTION D OF OCEAN PARK,PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY OCEAN PARK CORPORATION",dated March 20,1917,made by P.F.Mueller,C.E.,and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia, in Map Book 5, at Page 197; reference to which plat is hereby made for a more particular description of said lot. LESS, SAVE AND EXCEPT the portion of the aforesaid Lot 16 subdivided into and made a part of"PARCEL A" on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF MARINERS LANDING ON THE LYNNHAVEN SECTION ONE" dated October 1974 made by Marsh and Basgier, Inc., PC recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Map Book 113 at page 14. BEING a portion of the property conveyed to Shore Drive Area Properties, LLC by Deed of Distribution dated March 11,2013 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, as Instrument Number 20130321000327320, and further by Deed of Correction dated April 19, 2013 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office, as Instrument Number 20130425000475080, and further by Deed of Correction dated September 3, 2019 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument Number 20190912000773320, and further by Deed of Correction dated September 3, 2019 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument Number 20190912000773330. PARCEL C: GPIN: 1489-28-6485-0000(Shore Drive Area Properties,LLC) All those certain lots,pieces or parcels of land known,numbered and designated as Lots 1 through 10,inclusive,and 17 through 24,inclusive,Block 42,as shown on that certain plat entitled"Section D of Ocean Parks",duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia,in Map Book 5,at Page 197. LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of property conveyed to Commonwealth of Virginia by Certificate recorded in Deed Book 564,at Page 257,and shown on State Highway Plat 2,Pages 222-224. Together with all such right,title and interest in and to the streets,lanes,alleys,parks,playgrounds and other public spaces abutting or adjoining the above described property, as shown upon said plat. IT BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to Shore Drive Area Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company from F. Wayne McLeskey,Jr.,by Deed dated July 25, 2008 and recorded August 18, 2008 as Instrument No. 20080818000976300. 13 PARCEL D: GPIN: 1489-28-9631-0000(JTR, LLC) All those certain lots, pieces or parcels of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate in Bayside Borough, City of Virginia Beach,Virginia,known and designated as "Parcel-A" and"Parcel-B" as shown on that certain plat entitled, "RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 41 'OCEAN PARK' BAYSIDE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, PRINCESS ANNE COUNTY, VIRGINIA", made by Frank D. Tarrall, Jr. & Associates, Surveyors & Engineers,dated June 20,1962,which plat has been duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach,Virginia in Map Book 56,at Page 33. IT BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to JTR, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company by deed from Randall H. Browning, James R. Browning,Jr. and Terry L. Browning, dated May 1, 2000 and recorded May 15, 2000 in Deed Book 4239 at page 1529. CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY: (Adjacent to GPIN Numbers 1489-28-9631-0000&1489-38-2674-0000) An approximately 0.281 acre portion of Ocean Tides Drive,which runs from its intersection with Shore Drive south to its intersection with Clipper Bay Drive. (Adjacent to GPIN Numbers 1489-28-9631-0000&1489-28-6485-0000&1489-28-9308-0000) An approximately 0.606 acre portion of Clipper Bay Drive that runs from its intersection with Shore Drive heading southeast to its intersection with Ocean Tides Drive. C:\NRPortbl\I\LM M\1770554_1.DOCX 14 Virginia Beach Planning Commission September 8, 2021 Public Meeting Agenda Items # 6, 7, 8 &9 ITEMS 6 & 7—Street Closures JTR, LLC [Applicant] JTR, LLC; Bayliner Building, LLC & Shore Drive Area Properties (Property Owners] Adjacent Address: portion of Ocean Tides Drive, south of Shore Drive and north of Clipper Bay Drive; and a portion of Clipper Bay Drive right-of-way south of Shore Drive and west of Ocean Tides Drive ITEMS 8 & 9—Conditional Rezoning & Conditional Use Permit MP Shore, LLC [Applicant] JTR, LLC; Bayliner Building, LLC, Shore Drive Area Properties & City of Virginia Beach (Property Owners] Conditional Change of Zoning (B-2 and PD-H1 Districts to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District) Conditional Use Permit (Multi-Family Dwellings) 3829 & 3785 Shore Drive, adjacent parcel between Marlin Bay Drive and 3829 Shore Drive RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL— HEARD Mr. Weiner: I want to say a couple of words real quick before we get started. We like doing this, Planning Commissioners, and just wanted to take a few seconds to say a couple of things. And we as Planning Commissioners, we actually have a role, and the role of a Planning Commissioner is look at proper land use, okay,whether it would be stormwater, natural resources, traffic, things like that. And I'm looking at people out here and I just want to point out one thing, please treat people the way you'd like to be treated. Okay, I've not had any problems with anybody on the phone. I've talked to quite a few people on the phone. I've had quite a few emails from everybody. Let's just treat everybody with respect, okay, and courtesy, and we will have a lot of fun up here. I want to point out a couple things. If you are here to talk as a group, or talk for a group or a Civic League, you'll get 10 minutes. Okay, for that one person, everybody else will get three, you'll see a yellow light come on, on the podium.When the little yellow light comes on, you have 30 seconds to finish up your comments. And when the red light comes on, we're going to ask you to stop. We have a lot of speakers and we want to hear everybody and give everybody the fair amount of time to talk. Okay, thank you. Madam Clerk: Okay, our next orders of business are agenda items 6, 7, 8 and 9. Items six and seven are an application by JTR LLC for street closures on a portion of Ocean Tides Drive, south of Shore Drive and north of Clipper Bay Drive and a portion of 1 Clipper Bay Drive right of way, south of Shore Drive and west of Ocean Tides Drive in the Bayside District. Eight and nine are an application by MP Shore LLC for a Conditional Change of Zoning (B-2 and PDH-1 Districts to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District) and a Conditional Use Permit (Multi-Family Dwellings) on property located at 3829 and 3785 Shore Drive, adjacent parcel between Marlin Bay Drive and 3829 Shore Drive in the Bayside District.Would the applicant or the applicant's representative please step to the podium. Mr. Weiner: Good afternoon. Ms. Murphy: Good afternoon Chairman, Vice Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Mr. Tajan and Ms. Eisenberg and Planning staff. For the record, my name is Lisa Murphy and I'm a local zoning attorney with an office at 440 Monticello Ave, Suite 2200 in the City of Norfolk. I'm here today on behalf of the applicants Marlin Bay LLC, JTR, Shore Drive area properties and Bay Liner LLC, in connection with agenda item six and seven, which are the Street Closure applications, and items eight and nine, which are the Conditional Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. These would allow for the redevelopment of approximately 6.3 acres from B-2, and PD-H1 to B-4 SD Overlay in order to construct and operate 197 unit multifamily apartment building with an existing active boat sales facility with space for additional complimentary retail uses. By way of background, the owners of the subject properties,the McCleskey and Browning families are long term landowners who are very active in the community. They carefully selected the Terry Peterson Companies as the developer for the properties based on the company's stellar reputation as a local developer with a long track record of high quality projects and a long term investment philosophy. As you all know, the Terry Peterson Companies will develop a project and they will continue to own it, they won't flip it to a, you know, a hedge fund out of Northern Virginia or New York they will own it, they will maintain it and they have a very good track record of doing so. The proposed redevelopment project and rezoning reflects years of study, analysis, market research and outreach and represents really the highest and best use of this prominent gateway to the City along Shore Drive. As you know, this is one of the City's primary East-West connectors. The Marlin Bay mixed use project involves as I mentioned the redevelopment of approximately 6.3 acres from B-2 and PD-H1 to B-4.And as I said it allows for the demolition of a boat trailer, storage yard, and indoor and outdoor boat and RV storage building, and then the construction of the new high end residential apartment community with the existing boat dealership and an additional space left over. Just wanted to touch on a few high points, the applicant after conducting outreach as you all know with various stakeholders reduced the total unit count of the project by 30 units from 227 to 197 units. Doing this allowed the applicant to reduce the height of the section of the building and you all talked about this a little bit at your informal from four stories to three stories. That's that wing that faces the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. The section of the wings of the building that will remain four stories 2 conceal the parking structure, which provides full parking for all of the complex as the staff report indicates, with a combination of uses, they still have one more parking space than they're actually required to have. It's important to note, you all discussed the fact that this complies with the Comprehensive Plan,the Shore Drive Guidelines and the Corridor Overlay. The applicant in this case, although they could, is not requesting deviations from any of the standard requirements; they meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including the Shore Drive Overlay. The apartment community itself will feature high end amenities including resort style courtyard pool, multi-story clubhouse and fitness facility, bike storage, kayak paddleboard, package delivery and a conference facility. It's also going to have a two story clubhouse and fitness facility, so this will be consistent with other very high end apartment communities in the city. The architecture of the building is designed to blend with the Bayfront community, and to create a bold statement to define this strategic focus area. The applicants have proffered the installation of a 10-foot multi use trail along the entirety of the frontage on Shore Drive together with providing pedestrian pathways throughout the development and a striped crosswalk to access the Pleasure House Point area. I wanted to just touch briefly on the street closure, it's the section of—that's not the pointer. There we go. Let's get back, it's the section of Clipper Bay from Shore Drive. There we go. It exists here right now. That's Clipper Bay from Shore Drive to Ocean Tides and then Ocean Tides will remain as part of this street closure requirement. The reviewers went out and evaluated that area and determined that there would not be an inconvenience to the public, to go ahead and close that and include it in the overall redevelopment of these five parcels. Let's take a look at your staff analysis, as a result of the carefully planned placement and design to the proposed improvements, the mixed use redevelopment project complies as staff indicates with the Comprehensive Plan, the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District requirements and the design guidelines. It's located within a mixed use zone of the Shore Drive corridor where the Comprehensive Plan and the design guidelines encourage revitalization and reuse of existing commercial properties. In fact, it stresses that uses should avoid the over commercialization and be mindful of land use compatibility. So we've got 3.2 acres that's currently in B-2 that's actually going to be reduced to just over an acre that will be in that commercial component. As the staff report indicates, because the subject property is within the mixed zone of the Shore Drive and front Shore Drive, a higher density development is more appropriate. Less than a half mile from the site, there are apartment buildings within the mixed zone that are over 15 stories tall. Most of the buildings nearby are three stories or taller. And in fact, on the 3.2 acre portion of the property currently, which is zoned B-2, the owners could build a 200 foot building by-right and this is indicated in your staff report. The redevelopment of the unsightly boat trailer storage yard with a high end department community with an active boat dealership provides a much more desirable and more compatible transition of uses from Shore Drive to the residential dwellings within Ocean Park. Likewise, the design and orientation of the building, the setback from the intersection, which I think Mr. 3 Inman had a question about that, from the road itself, the building is set back 60 to 80 feet. And at that intersection, if you see there, it actually looks like there's we haven't measured it, it's more than 80 feet. And that was something that the applicant did at the request of the community to sort of pull the project away from the intersection. That gives us the ability to do more open space, more passive uses. So, it's very, there'll be lush landscaping; you've got the open space. You'll also have an art design feature which will be an iconic identification feature. And then as I indicated, the multi-use trail ensures that the proposed development is complimentary to the natural resource and open space of the city's Pleasure House Point Park. The multi-use trail as Mr. Lowman indicated is something that the city is going to be developing in phase four the Shore Drive improvement project. This is a big section of Shore Drive that the applicant will actually be dedicating and improving so they can continue this very nice resource for the people that live along Shore Drive. Most everybody agrees,you know, you look for the things that people agree on most, everybody agrees that the project is very attractive, and it will make this a much more appealing and impressive gateway to the city. As I mentioned, it will enhance the Shore Drive corridor to reflect the area's unique character, making the corridor functional and attractive scenic gateway and access way to the resort destination. Wanted to touch on a couple of more things, the benefits. Stormwater impacts, the subject property is currently improved with gravel, paved parking and buildings. It's almost entirely impervious, and it was developed at a time when the city did not have stormwater regulations in place. By redeveloping this property, the applicant is actually reducing the impervious cover by over a half acre and they're bringing it up to the current high standard regulations. Stormwater management facilities will be underground and stormwater will be treated before it is discharged both for quantity and quality. As a result, the total area will continue that will continue to drain into Shore Drive and Marlin Bay and Ocean Tides has actually been reduced both in area and impervious cover. The new traffic impact analysis, the applicant studied the area, the signal timing, and as the staff report indicates, with changes to the signal timing at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive that allows for more green time for Marlin Bay Drive movements. And then the installation of left turn lane into the property for westbound Shore Drive, all of the intersections will continue to operate at the same level of service. So this is not going to have a negative impact on traffic. The applicant, and this is something that normally comes up quite a bit, has proffered that it will reduce existing curb cuts through the revised, the new site plan. So instead of having four curb cuts, which you have now long Shore Drive, there'll be one on Shore Drive and then the one of Marlin Bay. This will impact, this is something that normally doesn't get looked at, but the city's economist has looked at this even with the reduced number of units, and they're predicting that over the next 20 years, the project will result in nearly$4 million in net revenue to the city. So it's very rare that you have a residential project or mixed use project that actually contributes net revenue to the city. In conclusion today, you will hear, no doubt you have heard a lot of negative speculation and conjecture regarding the impact of the proposed 4 redevelopment project on the community. Despite the applicant's best efforts to get out the facts and to address community concerns, through months of outreach and studies resulting in significant changes to key components of the project. The speculation and conjecture you will hear regarding the impact of the proposed project simply ignores the facts recognized by your professional planning staff and city engineers. This has been studied by the technical folks whose job it is to study this and they are comfortable. The Marlin Bay mixed use redevelopment project will revitalize and upgrade this critical gateway and access way to the city and is the highest and best use of this valuable corner. As the staff report indicates and as I've mentioned already, it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay and the Shore Drive design guidelines. Commissioner Oliver had a question about the siding. We had, as Hoa indicated, that was not something that had come up before the Bayfront Area Advisory Commission,when they looked at the building materials, they didn't take issue with any of the building materials. It's our thought after really researching this, that that would be that vinyl would be an appropriate siding and would actually stand up better and look better over time than the hardy plank type products, but if you know, because the multifamily is a Conditional Use Permit that's something certainly that if the Commission felt strongly about, that we could add a condition to address that. As I indicated, staff is recommending approval of all four applications. We respectfully request that you also recommend approval and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. And if not, I'll stand by for rebuttal. Mr. Weiner: Any questions? Yes. Mr. Graham: I'm sure I'll have more questions after we hear the speakers. I just saw the siding. Is it a premium quality vinyl siding? Or is it, can you or the builder or developer described the siding? Ms. Murphy: Yeah, it is a high quality premium vinyl siding where they've actually looked into what's going to stand the test of time. John, do you want to come up and address the siding?Because again, until very recently,this wasn't a question that had come up with us. Mr. Peterson: Good afternoon. John Peterson, representing MP Shore LLC. Mr. Weiner: Good afternoon. Mr. Peterson: The siding that we would be proposing is the premium vinyl siding. The way that's typically measured is based on thickness. It's 0.44 inches. And it has several benefits over the cementitious siding, hardie plank, everything from color to wear and tear, and even some environmental impacts as well. That's why we've chosen to use that material. 5 Mr. Graham: This is a little bit of a loaded question, I guess, because I have hardie plank on my house and hardie planks. I love hardie plank. But the problem with it is that it does need to be repainted, recaulked, and it does fade.This vinyl siding, how does color — how long does it last before it starts fading? Mr. Peterson: The color should be indefinite. That's the one of the major benefits of it. I think that to put some context on this, vinyl siding today is not what vinyl siding was 30 years ago. And it's because of the fact that hardie plank and the other brand of cementitious siding gained popularity. So vinyl manufacturers had to figure out what was deficient about their product and they've improved it tremendously. Color, you know, retaining color is one of the biggest things and you don't have to paint it. Mr. Graham: This has the same appearances as the hardie plank? Mr. Peterson: It does. Mr. Graham: That I just wanted to kind of clarify that. It is, you know, we'll get more into it later. I think it's important that whatever goes here will last. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond: I hope this isn't out of turn. But I just wanted to mention in kind of as a corollary to what you just said. This question of premium siding first came up that I remember here,when we were looking at a an apartment complex off of Newtown Road called Nexus that Boyd Companies built. You're a developer, you're familiar with it I'm sure, that was the first time I ever heard the term of premium siding and the same question came up and in the course of that debate, they'd said it's thicker. You don't see seams as much, it doesn't warp, doesn't bend, it doesn't you know, it's durable, it's much more durable, it doesn't fade anywhere near as well. You go down that and that was some years ago, if you go down Newtown Road, that's a pretty good looking project. It's very attractive project and sticks out like a sore thumb on that part of Newtown Road simply by virtue of it's, you know, of its fine appearance. So I've just wanted to add that because I forget about it later on. Mr. Weiner: And it was a long time ago. That was a while ago. That was a while ago. Yeah, that project still does look good. Mr. Redmond: It still does look good. Mr. Weiner: Okay, any other questions? Ms. Klein: I have one for the attorney, what is the price point for the apartments? 6 Ms. Murphy: John, do you want to? Do you just want to address the price point for the apartment? Mr. Peterson: At this point, it is just projections, but I think that you could look at a one bedroom that'd be probably starting around $1,400. Ms. Klein: And how many square feet is that? Mr. Peterson: Around 800 square feet. Ms. Klein: Thank you. Ms. Murphy: That's what I was gonna say. It's keeping in line with the Pearl Project, which is I don't know if you were on the commission at the time that was done, it reassures. Mr. Inman: Well, he's on that topic, what's the mix of number of bedrooms, three bedroom, two bedroom, one bedroom? Mr. Peterson: Right now we're projecting, and this could change when we get into actual design. It's a roughly 40 to 43%,one bedroom, and then about 50, I can't do the quick math 50, a little over 50% two bedroom, and there's only a handful of three bedrooms. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Wall, any questions? Mr. Wall: Can we get to the layout for the apartment complex? There's a couple things to that one. A couple of things, so the question was asked this morning, which ones are the three, not the three, the three story and the four story I think that was just to set the context? Ms. Murphy: This section right here, facing that intersection, right was the one they were able to reduce to three stories. And then right here is your parking structure. And then around the parking structure, you've got the four stories that are meant to conceal the parking structure. So you're not seeing our construction. Ms. Wall: What about the club? I mean, obviously that the pool was in the center. Where's the clubhouse that you? You said it was a two story clubhouse? Ms. Murphy: Yep. Mr. Peterson: It's actually just two and, you know, playing right out of the pool itself. It's actually built into the building. Mr. Wall: Okay, so it's part of the structure. 7 Mr. Peterson: That's correct. Mr. Wall: But that's four stories right there. So is that? Mr. Peterson: Two stories of the common area, and then there'll be two stories of apartment. Mr. Wall: Okay, all right. And the landscaping, there's the access drive on the kind of the south side on the bottom that connects to Marlin Bay Drive. What is — so there's landscaping on that side adjacent to the existing properties, right there. What is that maybe I over looked at, what is that? What is the plan to be? Mr. Peterson: The requirement in this zoning category is a 15 foot landscaping buffer, so those are the—I don't know the exact species, but they'd be very tall, dense trees. Mr. Wall: But right there, that's four stories. So I mean, they have to be pretty tall too. because they'd be looking, those four stories would be looking down into the existing, kind of existing properties, because those are only generally two stories that are adjacent, there. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Bradley? Mr. Bradley: I've got a question just about parking in general. And maybe this is kind of a preliminary stage for you. But I know you meet the minimum zoning, but how are you going to allocate it when you got one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom. In my experience, when I go to apartment complexes, there is always very few guest parking spaces available, and it's hard to access them a lot of times. Mr. Peterson: Well, we had not determined whether we would do assigned parking spaces. That's a kind of a market question. Candidly, we think that the parking ratio that's required as a minimum is higher than necessary. And that's not conjecture that's based on experience of the other couple thousand apartments that we either are managing or own. And we have parking ratios that are typically lower than the parking ratio that we have here. And we don't have any parking issues there. So that's based, that's how we kind of arrived at parking numbers, but ultimately, we had to meet the minimum in working with the planning staff. Mr. Inman: How many parking spaces are there? Mr. Peterson: I don't remember the number. Ms. Murphy: I believe, it's 390. Let's see 390 spaces, actually 391 spaces, 358 for the multifamily, and then you've got 32 spaces for the commercial building. Mr. Inman: How many for the residential? 8 Ms. Murphy: 358 for the multifamily part of it. Mr. Inman: Thank you. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Thank you. Oh I am sorry. Mr. Wall: So this is kind of a general question. But so the reference guidelines and reference documents from the Comprehensive Plan, I think you analysed these referenced Comprehensive Plan shows the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, which are both fairly dated in early 2000s, even late 1990s, I think is from the ULI. They were approved and included and they included even the Pleasure House Point Park, as you know, fairly large developments. Did you all review those? And, you know, in terms of when you were, you know, doing your research? It's kind of an open questions, but I'm just curious what your review, because it's,those are dated.You mentioned the apartments aren't from the late 1990s. It even says apartments aren't, weren't even viable. They mentioned the Marina Shores as being viable. But I guess the market conditions have changed to the point that apartments are now. I mean, clearly, there are other apartment complexes on Shore Drive, but. Ms. Murphy: Yeah, and I can tell you just from having represented them, the other project at Marina Shores, The Pearl, they're actually getting rents in excess of what they've projected in their early pro-formas. Because there's so much demand in the corridor. So you've got not only do you have younger people that we're trying to attract as part of our workforce to the city, but you also have older folks who want to stay in the corridor, you know, sell their home and they can stay in an apartment and be around their grandkids and go to the same restaurants that they always go to. So, you know, in the 20-25 years since the plan was done, you've seen a tremendous increase in the need for multifamily, high quality multifamily, but you've also seen a real decrease in the need for retail. If you look up and down that corridor there are empty strip centers, you've got vape shops, you know, local breweries here and there, but there's a real struggle now for retail. And so one of the things that the applicants did was they really studied, okay - what's going to be successful here? What can the market support and that retail piece of it no matter how they looked at it, no matter where they looked? There really is not a big demand because you don't have although it seems like a big population, a lot of areas that you're covering is water. So there are fewer people that you would think within the projected area. Mr. Graham: Mr. Wall, you done? I was going to kind of follow up on that if I could. I drive by this every day and there's a lot of—there's two bank buildings, former bank buildings that are vacant. One of them has about three foot high grass out front. There is a — there's a tobacco shop. I think there's maybe two or three vape shops, laundromat, I mean there. The Shore Drive area and Great Neck area and I live in the area, I think is one of the best places to live in Virginia Beach. We have had a 9 revolving door of restaurants and retail and I would love to see some of the stuff that's along Shore Drive go away. But that's a whole another subject. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Right, we will get back to you, thank you. Madam clerk. Madam Clerk: Okay. First speaker, is Danny Murphy here? Okay, Danny Murphy, followed by Cole Trower. Mr. Weiner: Welcome sir. Please state your name for the record. Mr. Murphy: Danny Murphy. President of Ocean Park Civic League. Mr. Weiner: Sir, can you move here and handed it over to the clerk and she'll take care of that. So you can start speaking. Mr. Murphy: Thank you. Again, my name is Danny Murphy; I am the president of the Ocean Park Civic League. And first of all, I'd like to thank you all. I've been kind of stalking you over the last couple of months, watching what you do. And I know that you are very considerate and thoughtful. I've spoken to a number of you. I've spoken to a number of the city staff, and you're all very professional, I appreciate that. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank the developers and the owners of the property. We need to remain friends after this no matter what. I know, there's a lot of stiff opposition to it. But I really do think that this isn't the only thing going on. I'd like to apologize to them also for the graffiti that was placed on their banner, we do not condone that. We should operate in a civil manner. So I hope you will take my sincere apology for that. I don't know who did it. And if I did, I would certainly have words with them. So you kind of got me off, because I thought we were doing two different ones here. It's the street closure. Okay. Well, first of all, I'd like to tell you that we do oppose it, we have met with them a number of times, twice, you know, we kind of did the little dance or the poker game where they came in with 227 the first, you know, 27, broke it down to 197. And since then, there really have not been any negotiations whatsoever. I will say there was some discussions about other properties within the community. But there was no serious discussion on the number of units. Our biggest issue is density. Everything is a waterfall from density, all the issues that we have with traffic, with parking, with the environmental impact comes from the density of this, this unit or the project that they're trying to do. I'll start off first telling you a little bit about the density. The plan says that there is 31.77 units on that lot there. That is because we're using the boat sales lot to call that a zoning lot. They've taken the straight away, they're going to put an alley there so they can get through the mixed use or they can get to the zoning lot with only a 20 foot alleyway in between, they can then use the 6.2 acres, as the calculation for the density is effectively over 40 units per acre. And that's significant. The other thing is they're using mixed use being business. We just heard that retail is not being used very often on Shore Drive, if there's not much of 10 a need for there.Yet,they're telling us well,we're going to put this boat sales,we're going to have retail commercial there. But we already know it doesn't work. So what's going to happen in 5 or 10 years, they're going to proffer that they're not going to develop it. We know how proffers work. We've seen it at Marina Shores with tennis courts there, come back in a couple of years and say, Hey, you know, there's a 40 per unit building here. Let's put 25 or 30 per unit on this other one. The biggest problem with that is a zoning lot is that it's not true mixed use in terms of what the city had designed, It is strictly or not strictly, it is supposed to be used for more urban settings, such as Town Center, strategic growth areas, and not in the strategic focus areas of residential. The biggest issue they have with that right now is that if you look at the— if you look at the definition of mixed use, it says two or more separate uses allowed as a principle or conditional use, that are physically and functionally integrated. So we've got an existing boat sales, we're going to take, we're going to say, hey, let's lock it all together and call it a zoning lot, it's not integrated. It actually is only using 2000 square feet for anything other than the boat sales and to boot,they don't have the parking requirements for that 32 spaces for 12,000 square feet is nowhere near enough.They're fine on the apartment side, but they're not talking about that and the Comprehensive Plan points that out. The other problem is that zoning or mixed use says it must be within the same structure. That is clearly two structures.There's going to be the apartment complex, and then there's going to be the retail and it straddles that, and if you look at the definition, clearly not within that. The other issues that I have with it, obviously the guidelines when we talk about that, it does not meet the intent to develop mixed use as a principle tool for redevelopment as a preferred land use pattern in the strategic growth areas. Shore Drive is not a strategic growth area. As I mentioned, the proffers, talked a little bit about density in the packet that I gave out to you there. We know that the Comprehensive Plan says that the infill should be compatible with the density and preserving and protecting the character of established neighborhoods and achieving the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses. As you can clearly see, as I said, effectively that's 40 units per acre they're putting there. If you take it, and you look at and say, what are they actually developing, they are not developing the boat sales, they're only developing the one, the two lots actually PD-H1 and B-2 there. You'll notice that I pulled the open data set of address points and I plotted those out individually and I also plotted the 197 units that they want to put on that four acres of land. You'll see that there are roughly 1563 units in Ocean Park. I include Aries on the Bay, Pelican Dunes with that because the primary egress and access is from Shady Oaks Drive. If you look at the density of those other ones, the closest one is 50 units per acre, and that's at the Chesapeake House that was built in 1975. That was even before we had a Comprehensive Plan. If you look directly across the street, there's A-18 that was a B2 project that was turned similarly into apartments, A-18 those condos, the density is significantly lower on those, it's only 12 per acre. If you look at the other B-4 properties within that area, the Villas at Ocean Park, Vintage Point, Townhomes at Roanoke, Pendleton, Bar Harbor condos, Bay Vista. They're all 11 below that 31 point and significantly, as you get closer to Pleasure House Point in the green zone. Yes, it is in the mixed use of the Shore Drive area, but it's on the border of the green zone, meaning Marlin Bay is the dividing line. It sits on the very edge right next to the pristine 118 acres of Pleasure House Point. Yes, it's reclaimed natural area, but it gets significant traffic. Let's see, I think the biggest concern is what it's going to do for the neighborhood, to be honest. I look at what they're trying to do. I'm not insensitive to the building costs, I understand putting the garage and the retention vaults and everything costs money. And I know that, you know, currently, we're certainly experiencing a lack of affordable housing. I think we would have to go far to stretch that this is may not be affordable housing. It's called luxury apartments for a reason. Not that I'm not going to say it's not going to have any impact. But I believe the impact putting 200 units on four acres within a historic Bayfront community is certainly going to have a huge impact. It's going to have cascading effects. I expect my other colleagues will talk somewhat about that, walk you through the individual points. But at this point, I'd like to know who has the first question. Mr. Weiner: Questions. Yes, Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond: First off, I appreciate your call. I'm one of those guys that you had a good conversation with. And the other thing I want to say is I appreciate your apology. I was appalled frankly at the vandalism on this site. Vandalism has no part, not only in any public policy debate, doesn't have any part in the city at all. So it's property crime. So and you're the first person who's ever — I've heard express that. So I think that was important. And I appreciate that. You did a good job. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall: So would you be opposed if they — I'm not saying this is anything that we would recommend but, I mean, let's say the apartments just, any apartments there would you be opposed? Mr. Murphy: Oh, I'm not opposed to apartments whatsoever. We don't care. I mean, you could put condos there, 200 condos that have the same effect. I believe that we do need apartments within the city. It's not the apartments I oppose, or you know, I think we oppose. We're looking for, you know, I think what they presented is the maximum use for that property with 200 units. What I asked —what I think it's incumbent on you is to find the optimal use and that's taken into the factors in account of what the density is and looking at the neighborhood. So it isn't the apartments we oppose. Mr. Wall: So how many people are part of the Civic League? 12 Mr. Murphy: We have about 300 members, but there's contained family members as well. So it's more and then I've represent roughly 1400 of those are in Ocean Park. As I said, Pelican Dunes and Aries on the Bay have separate home ownerships and Baylake Pines is separate as well. Mr. Wall: Okay, so this, this map represents Ocean Park. Mr. Murphy: And Aries and Pelican Dunes, because they use the Shady Oaks Drive that comes up to the Marlin Bay intersection. So that's their main point of egress and ingress. Mr. Wall: Where is Pelican Dunes? Mr. Murphy: It would be on the top left for you. And is the green one, so the top left there put up. Mr. Wall: Okay, so that's the Dunes up there. Mr. Murphy: Yeah, that's way too. So it'll be at the end of Shady Oaks. Mr. Wall: Okay. Mr. Murphy: But they use that same entrance where the light is. Mr. Wall: Okay. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Mr. Murphy: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Our next speaker is Cole Trower and is Teesh Frazier here, okay, following Mr. Trower will be Cheryl McCluskey. Mr. Weiner: Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Trower: Good afternoon. It's a great day to be in the greatest city in Virginia in the entire country of Virginia Beach. My name is Cole Trower, I am a homeowner. At the age of 29, I bought my own home on the very street that he said that everybody is going to drive to and go to the beach, 3970 Aires Way; I have 10 years in the restaurant industry having experience as a waiter or bartender, even washing dishes. You know, it's not a glorious job. But you've got a lot of restaurants and folks on Shore Drive, that that's how they make their living. And I think a lot of my neighbors here; I might have served them an Orange Crush or Crab Dip once or twice. I also have 10 years of experience working — not 10 years of experience working for the City of Virginia Beach, one year of experience working for the City of Virginia Beach 13 briefly in economic development. And during my time for economic development, I focused on business retention and acquisition. And the City of Virginia Beach tax dollars, millions of dollars each year go towards business retention and acquisition. That's what makes our City great. We have great businesses, and people enjoy working here. One of the pillars of having economic development being so strong and when you are pitching these companies for the city is we sell them on our quality of life, and that we have places for their workers to live. And right now, young people in this city cannot find a place to live. I just got a text five days ago. Hey buddy, how's it going? I just moved back and I'm looking for a place near Chicks on Shore Drive. Do you know anywhere? I don't know anywhere. No one knows anywhere. We have all of these young people that go off to college. And then we say why don't they return? It's because number one, they don't have a place to live, that's affordable, that safe and nice. And I live and own a home, my girlfriend owns a home on the same street. And I am a member of the Aries on the Bay Civic League. And I was briefly the parliamentarian of the Ocean Park Civic League for a month or two wasn't a great job, trust me. So I will tell you this, it is not unanimous that this that are my neighbors don't want this development. You know, I think sometimes we get caught up in details and details are important. But I think sometimes we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. Our city is growing. And that's a good thing. We have people that want to live here and work here. We must make a plan for those people to thrive in our city. Because, you know, it is our future and that's the decisions made here today will impact not only our residents, our businesses, and then also you know just everything how we conduct our daily life. And I would just encourage Commissioner Wiener's comments as I run out of time. I have been slandered, attacked and just vilified on Facebook and Next Door by some people sitting behind me that have just trashed anyone that would stand up just to say, Hey, I think this might be a good idea. And I think if that wouldn't have happened, some of my neighbors might be here today saying the same thing. I appreciate your time, your public service. And I hope that we have a good lengthy debate today on the issues and stay away from vitriolic attacks like we've seen on Facebook. Mr. Weiner: Thank you for your comments. Any questions? Thank you sir. Madam Clerk: Cheryl McCleskey followed by John Pharr. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. McCleskey: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. For the record, my name is Cheryl McCleskey. Thank you for your service to the community and helping make Virginia Beach a well planned community. The McCleskey and the Browning families have owned property and Ocean Park neighborhood for over 50 years. The McCleskey family has allowed the public to benefit from the vacant open space during our ownership, including 14 the land that is now Pleasure House Point. My dream has been to fulfil my late husband's vision by developing quality, reasonably priced multifamily residential units that will allow new families to become part of this beautiful Bayfront neighborhood. We have teamed up with the Terry Peterson Residential, a family company with a stellar reputation and long term commitment to the community. John Peterson and Tuck Bowie are known for building high quality multifamily rental housing. We have also selected the well-respected Timmons Group to provide excellent project engineering and Cox Cleaver to provide design quality. Together we will create an engaging community of coastal living along Shore Drive. During this planning phase of the project, we have listened to the concerns of the neighbors and government officials and that is why we reduce the density from 227 to 197. The current zoning allows us to develop a full scale commercial and retail business without any further permission from the city government. However, we think the highest and best use of our land, our company and our community is to build multifamily housing. As you know, the housing stock in Virginia Beach is down significantly from last year for both single and multifamily housing. This development will provide reasonably priced apartment rental properties that are needed for the citizens. The city's economic impact report shows that this rezoning will have a $3.78 million net positive impact over 20 years for the city, very rare for this kind of development project. The traffic impact study demonstrates that there is a reduction in traffic from uses allowed under the current zoning. The combined average daily trips for our current business zoning is estimated to be 2074. However, if we build 197 multifamily units, the number of average daily trips will be an estimated 1448, which is 30% less than the use is allowed under the current zoning. We have also exceeded the requirements for the number of parking spaces for residents to prevent parking on neighborhood streets. Parking will be shielded from the street. The school's impact study shows our project will have minimal amount on schools. Mr. Weiner: Thanks you're your comments, any questions for Ms. McCleskey. Ms. McCleskey: I just want to say based on all these comments along with Planning Staff recommendations for approval on behalf of my company and our trustworthy building partners we ask you to approve our application. Thank you so much. Mr. Weiner: Any questions?Thank you, ma'am. Ms. McCleskey: Thank you. Madam Clerk: John Pharr followed by Andrina Fisher. Mr. Weiner: Welcome, sir. 15 Mr. Pharr: Good afternoon. All right. Thank you for giving me a couple of minutes to speak today. My name is John Pharr, and my family lives at 2105 Woodlawn Avenue. We've been there 11 years and can't imagine being anywhere else. The appearance, character, and longtime residents are some of the many reasons why we love Ocean Park. We value our privacy but welcome many to our Bayfront community. It's an excellent flow that is currently manageable. Change is inevitable in life. Many of us are asking for change that is reasonable and considerate of our beloved Ocean Park. The current Marlin Bay proposal is too aggressive and too dense for many residents. Multi story housing complex is the exact opposite of our single family homes. I believe many of us are asking to be heard. And frankly,just want to find somewhere to meet in the middle. Thanks for your time. Mr. Weiner: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Andrina Fisher followed by Mike Wills. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Fisher: My name is Andrina Fisher, my husband and I own the townhouse at 3836 Ocean Tides Drive. When we purchased the townhouse a little over three years ago, we thought that the lot behind our home would not remain empty forever. We thought eventually the boat dealership would expand or perhaps some additional townhouses or duplexes would be built. Never could we have imagined that someone would have the idea to build a four story nearly 200 unit apartment complex right in our backyard. If you look at the plat map, our townhouse is the last end unit on the left side of Ocean Tides Drive. I've stated in my previous letters to all of you that our home would arguably be one of the most negatively impacted, should this project be allowed to move forward. The apartment complex could potentially reach heights of 50 feet or more. The developer plans to build a street directly behind our fence where no street currently exists, and trash facilities would be built close by. They also plan to close the cross over to Ocean Tides Drive. What does all of this mean for us and our neighbors? It means that we would no longer enjoy any privacy in our backyard. It means the apartment building due to its towering height will likely block most of the early to late afternoon sunlight that we currently enjoy. It means constant traffic noise from apartment residents, visitors and service vehicles entering and exiting the complex. It means light pollution at night and noise pollution all hours of day and night. We can currently access our street by turning left off of Marlin Bay Drive. But once the project is complete, we'll have to drive up the road and make a U-turn to get to our house. I don't consider that a small inconvenience. I also fear the value of our home will be negatively impacted if this development is approved.We don't want to sell,we love the charming character of the neighborhood. But the apartment complex would destroy the character of Ocean Park. I assume that many of you live in single family homes. And I'd ask each of you to imagine how you would appreciate a project of 16 this size being built right behind your backyard. I've noticed that those speaking in favor of it don't live directly next to it like our home is. Can you honestly say that this wouldn't negatively impact your quality of life or the value of your home? I'd ask you if your role in the planning commission is primarily to further the interests of developers or are you also here to protect the interests of the residents that would be negatively impacted by a development of this size? I hope the latter is also true.We aren't against appropriate development. But the proposed Marlin Bay apartment complex does not fit in the existing footprint. Hundreds of residents have reached out to you and asked you not to approve this project. Please listen to them and to us and vote no, thank you. Mr. Weiner: Any questions? Ms. Oliver: Do you mind using the pointer and pointing right where your house is placed? Ms. Fisher: Okay, I haven't used one of these before. Ms. Oliver: It doesn't work very well. I don't think. Ms. Fisher: Which button? I've got it backwards. Oops, I must have forwarded, sorry. I don't see a red button. Hang on. Okay, get the slide back and I found the red button.We are right here. So the shadow from the 15 foot tree line that they spoke about is ironically longer than the shadow from the building which could be 50 feet. So you can imagine that the shadow actually that would be cast by this building on our property is going to take all the sunlight. Ms. Oliver: So explain to me just because I don't—why you have to make a U-turn? Ms. Fisher: Because currently when you come from Marlin Bay along here, you can turn left in the Ocean Tides Drive. There's a little median strip, median strip. But the plan is to close off this median strip to create an access into the street that goes to the apartment complex. At least it was at the first plan that I saw. So right now it's an empty lot and I understand, you know, an empty lot won't remain empty forever. But you see they're building — they're planting trees directly on our fence line. Where currently there aren't any trees and there'll be 15 feet high. That's closing this in my opinion. And then you have the residents here and the four stories which I imagine they're gonna have to build up,you know, about seven to eight feet above the current elevation and then build on top of that four stories. So we'll have people that live here and here, looking directly into our backyards and into our windows. Ms. Oliver: I would imagine that's why the trees are there. Ms. Fisher: Trees are only 15 feet high. The building could be close to 50-55 feet high. 17 Ms. Oliver: Thank you. Ms. Fisher: Any other questions? Mr. Weiner: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Fisher: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Mike Wills, followed by Carley Swift. Mr. Wills: Good afternoon Commissioner, Planning Commission members. My name is Mike Wills and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about this application. I moved into Ocean Park back in 2000 and into a duplex condo. So I've been in there over 20 years, love the neighborhood, but we have seen a lot of changes, and it's getting more and more dense and nowadays, it's summer weekend, you can barely drive your car down the road, you know, with cars parked on both sides of it. So it's changed a lot. And, you know, and there are many reasons why, you know, we're opposed to this. I'm personally opposed to it, you know, number one you've heard is the density, I just don't feel that it's compatible with the existing neighborhood, and not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in the Shore Drive Corridor District. And by all means, I'm not against growth and redevelopment, I really feel like this property is prime for redevelopment, but it needs to be done within the existing zoning rules of the property and does not warrant the change. I owned a heating air conditioning electrical contracting business does a lot of new construction. Like I said, I'm all for growth and smart development. But it needs to be at the right and the right place, and not at the detriment of the existing property owners that have lived there for a long time and made Ocean Park their home under the current zoning regulations of this property as well as their own. So it needs to be developed within the existing densities of the surrounding community. And just to give you a couple of examples, you know, talk is cheap, but I want to give you a couple examples of where I personally and as well as the community put our money where our mouth is. Back in 2004, I was lucky enough to find another property in Ocean Park, a duplex, basically a duplex rental property that built in the 50s. And I decided to tear it down and build a single family home. And that's where I reside today, you know, of course, I could have put another duplex on it and made quite a bit of money. But I didn't think that was the right thing to do. We didn't need more density in Ocean Park. Then as an executive member of the Ocean Park Civic League, which I served on for many years, back in 2006-2007, we sold the old Fire and Rescue building and property that we owned in Ocean Park and again zoned R-5R we could have sold it you know to a developer let him put in a duplex on it. But we decided to put a deed restriction on it that could only be redeveloped as a single family residence. And so thus,we took a much lower value for the property than we could have otherwise received. So I asked you to please don't condone the smoke and mirrors, you 18 know, scheme to include property in this whole proposal that isn't even part of the redevelopment and do not approve this application as proposed. Thank you. Mr. Weiner: Any questions? Mr. Inman: Yes. Can you tell me, didn't you mention that there are a lot of cars parking along Marlin Bay Drive? Mr. Wills: No, not necessary Marlin Bay, I live on the other side of Shore Drive but like along Powhatan, where I come in and out of my section of neighborhood. There are cars every weekend parked on both sides; you can barely get your one car down the middle of the street. It's gotten really bad. Mr. Bradley: Does that relate to this development? Mr. Wills: Well, I just think, you know,with all these apartments, you're gonna have lots more visitors to the area. Obviously the people that live there are going to have visitors and they're just gonna, they're gonna be inviting people to come to the beach, obviously and just to put a continuous strain on the parking that's available in Ocean Park. Mr. Inman: In what ways does the design or the proposal for this project not comply with the Shore Drive Development Guidelines? Mr. Wills: Well, it says it should be within the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood, essentially and existing density which is far exceeds the existing density. And it's not in character with the rest of the neighborhood. There are no other apartment buildings in Ocean Park. It's all townhouses, duplex you know, things of that nature, single family homes. Mr. Inman: Okay. Mr. Weiner: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Mr. Wills: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Carley Swift followed by Andrea Lindeman. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Swift: Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. Thank you for hearing our comments. I would like to highlight a few points. Mr. Weiner: State your name for the record. 19 Ms. Swift: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Carley Swift. I'm an Ocean Park resident and business owner for 31 years and oppose this project in its current plan. So I'd like to reiterate and highlight a few points from Faith Christie's letter that you may have received on September 1st, who, as you probably know, has been a previous worker for the City Planning and also helped with the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and participated in the BAC. We are not opposed to development for these properties. We would like to see these properties developed with a project that complements the surrounding residential areas. And as you have indicated in your previous report, this area is identified as a suburban focus area in the Comprehensive Plan.A plan that recommends low dense, low to medium residential density and development of structures that are complimentary to surrounding uses.A proposed development of a four and a half story building with 197 units contained within it is not low to medium density, low to medium density is 12 to 18 units to the acre, which is keeping of the existing densities in the area. The proposed height and bulk of the building is not complimentary, or in keeping with the existing residential or commercial uses in the area,and the height and size of the building will overwhelm the existing residential uses.The proposed reduction of impervious areas indicated in the report looks good on paper. But until the proposed improvements, including stormwater management are made to this section of Shore Drive, there will be increased problems with drainage and flooding.This section of Shore Drive, as I'm sure you currently know, is currently under design review. And the project is expected to begin possibly in 2024, maybe 26 or 27. The Shore Drive Corridor Improvements Phase 3 were scheduled in 2019 and have not begun. So filling a site to accomplish a seven foot elevation will cause adjacent properties to flood. Thank you for your time, appreciate. Mr. Weiner: Any questions?Thank you. Ms. Swift: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Andrea Lindeman followed by Mark Faust. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Lindeman: Thank you. My name is Andrea Lindeman. And I live in Ocean Park. And I want to be brief; I just want to make two points. Because you'll hear this the very same points probably. It strikes me every time that I drive home down Shore Drive; I drive by Marlin Bay Drive where Pleasure House Point comes all the way to Shore Drive. And it strikes me the sheer length and mass of this proposed building. And then I learned something from Mr. Dao's report, it gets worse. The buildings will in fact be taller than four and four and a half stories. In order to construct the stormwater detention system, the site will need to be filled in to an elevation of seven or eight feet above sea level. And so the measuring of four or four and a half stories, will 20 start from that elevated level. This is again,just a demonstration of the massing of the building,which goes against the Shore Drive design guidelines.The other thing I would like to say so this building will dwarf its surroundings. And so what are these surroundings? This location is not a blank slate; it's in the middle of Ocean Park. And I feel like the staff report that we read kind of glosses over giving this figure of 31.77 density. This is a huge increase over other recent projects. And so I went back and I looked at some of the staff reports for two recent projects that were okayed for Shore Drive. And they use the language of the Comprehensive Plan,talking about infill development,that infill development should be at a density that's compatible with the surrounding area. So at 3746, 3744 Shore Drive came in at 14 units per acre, 3739 Shore Drive came in at 17.4 per acre. And the staff reports use the language in the Comprehensive Plan about to justify the approval saying that this had to be compatible with the surrounding area. So I just want to say that we chose Ocean Park because it had atmosphere, history and personality. And I think that this has value not only to the neighborhood, but it has value to Virginia Beach City, to preserve this kind of neighborhood. It's blinking. So I hope you will listen to the language of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Weiner: Thank you very much ma'am. Thank you for your comments, any questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Mark Faust, followed by Debbie Cohen. Mr. Weiner: Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Faust: Good afternoon. Thank you for your time ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. I'm Mark Faust. I've been a resident of Ocean Park for over 30 years during this time has grown as a vibrant neighborhood with wonderful blend of families and individuals. This proximity the natural area, the beach, local businesses, as well as being in a great school district make it a very desirable place to live. I'm strongly opposed to the proposal. I'm strongly opposed to the Marlin Bay apartment development. I'm concerned with the sheer volume of people in autos that will impact the neighborhood adversely. The traffic on Shore Drive at the proposed area is already overwhelming, including recent fatalities of drivers and pedestrians. Right on the corner of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay, a pedestrian was hit not long ago.As part of the Civic League that assists the Adopt-A-Spot that cares for Pleasure House Point, I've seen the impact of the increased use has in this fragile environment. Lots of trash, had fences and the disturbance of wildlife. Along the street there on Pleasure House Point side, it's only parking till, you can't park after dark. So everyone is supposed, if there's overflow of parking,they're not allowed to be there after dark, it is all going to be on this side of the street maybe, that's another concern. It's a wonderful place for people with families just starting out and growing, retirees and pretty much everybody in between. In my opinion, a high density project with almost 200 rental units will undoubtedly tip the balance of 21 the neighborhood in a negative and permanent way. And I urge you to say no to this project. Thank you for your time. Mr. Weiner: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Debbie Cohen, followed by Todd Goforth. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Cohen: My name is Debbie Cohen. And my husband and I live on Pendleton Avenue near Marlin Bay and Shore Drive. I've never been at a meeting like this, so little nervous. But I wanted to speak because I'm very concerned about what the proposed development will do to my neighborhood. My husband and I moved here a few years ago and we decided we wanted to live off a Shore Drive. We just fell in love with the area.We're really happy living here. We'd love walking at Pleasure House Point and in our neighborhood and going across Shore Drive to go to the Bay. It's like perfect location. But urn, main thing, I mean, I support what the others have said the Ocean Park Civic League and the other speakers have said in opposition to the project. But my main concern is definitely like there's a lot of, there's a lot of units proposed in this apartment complex. And seems like a very high density compared to what I've seen in the surrounding areas. And also, recent development I've seen on Pendleton Avenue and in my area has all been three story townhomes and much, much lower density. I'm very concerned about having so many additional units coming into that small property. The other thing is I'm looking at the Bay Area Advisory Committee, which I think understands and supports our special Shore Drive community, they voted in opposition to the project. They indicated that there needs to be a reduction in the height considering the two story townhouses adjacent on Ocean Tides Drive and also saying the project is not congruent with the existing Shore Drive corridor guidelines and Comprehensive Plan and therefore they recommended denial of the application. So you know, as others has said, I'm not against development of the property. I just hope that whatever development it will preserve and protect our community, our neighborhood community. I appreciate your time and consideration. I know a lot of people are talking and sending emails letters, and I appreciate that you consider them all. Mr. Weiner: Thank you, ma'am. Any questions? Thank you. Ms. Cohen: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Todd Goforth, followed by Todd Solomon. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. 22 Mr. Goforth: Good afternoon. My name is Todd Goforth. I live at 3850 Ocean Tides Drive. My wife and I own a townhome there.And this development would back up right to our property line. Therefore, vehemently oppose the development. I've lived in the neighborhood for over 15 years. And just to flush out what everybody's been saying, there are so many people in our neighborhood that have been there for a decade or longer. We're very tight knit community. Most people don't know we don't have an HOA, Homeowners Association. We police ourselves and take care of what we have. And if you look at the field that they're talking about, there's no trash dumpster, no you know, broken down cars or anything. Our neighborhood does a really good job of taking care of itself and policing itself. I live at the end of Ocean Tides. That is by Pleasure House Point. And that takes me back to when Pleasure House Point was under question from another developer Fineman. The Sandlers came and made a great presentation, was an elegant speaker, great presentation. But the big elephant in the room has always been density, density. I don't care how great your presentation is, who you are, how much money you have? Its density that is the problem. Now to put a personal thing out if you live in our neighborhood long enough, you know about the young woman that died crossing the intersection there, it's Shore Drive and Marlin Bay, you know about people have been hurt. Now, as I look at this, the crosswalks, if people are gonna go to the beach or going to go straight across, they don't typically go down to the crosswalks. On a Saturday, traffic is tremendous on Shore Drive, people going to the beach. And the other thing that Mark Faust brought up, he's my neighbor across the street. If you look at Marlin Bay Drive, Pleasure House Point, what a fantastic thing that the city did along with other people. During the day, you can park on Marlin Bay Drive and access Pleasure House Point. But after dark, you have to move your vehicles, there's not supposed to be anybody in Pleasure House Point after dark. Therefore, it's an excellent opportunity if you live in those apartments, you come home, you can't find a parking spot where you gonna go, you know, the cars are leaving after dark especially in the winter, there will be cars lined up and down there. I see it on the weekends, there's cars lined up and down there already on the weekends, doing what we hoped they would do accessing Pleasure House Point. And the last thing I want to say, the beach. We all live around here. We love the beach. The density at the beach has got tremendous because we had no sand replenishment. What's that have to do with? Well, you have so many people where we can't watch kids anymore. It used to be there's just one person you had an open view, now that you're so crowded, you can't see the little kids anymore. And I would hate for that to be the straw that breaks the camel's back when some kid, we can't find them, or they get injured because there's so many people in that beach. And who knows when we're getting sand replenishment with COVID going on. So that's all I have to say. Mr. Weiner: Thanks you sir, any questions? 23 Ms. Oliver: Yes, sir, and I just want to ask a question, because you're the second gentleman to mention the parking along Marlin Bay Drive in the dark and stuff, I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with the actual apartment complex because they have their own parking garage. So these people that live in the apartment building are obviously going to utilize the garage. So I'm just trying to, I'm trying to figure out. Mr. Goforth: You are correct. In a perfect world, they have planned to the hilt. And anybody that comes to visit or lives there has his parking spot in the garage or that I'm just saying typically weekends everybody that you know when you move to the beach wants to come visit you, holidays,wants to come visit you. All of a sudden you got friends that you never knew you had and if you don't have a place to park and you see all this open spot, you know you're naturally going to park there. Ms. Oliver: Okay. Mr. Goforth: So that's my comment and it already happens now for people that come in our neighborhood can't find a spot park on there after dark. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Todd Solomon, followed by Windy Crutchfield. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Mr. Solomon: Good afternoon. My name is Todd. Hope you don't mind, I'm gonna keep my mask on. I was with 68,000 crazy Hokie fans this past weekend, so for your benefit, right, I don't want to get you if I am, so I'm not gonna pass it on. My name is Todd Solomon. I live off of Shore Drive. I'm representing the Shore Drive Community Coalition. I'm here to ask for your opposition of this project. At our May 24th meeting, the Shore Drive Community Coalition voted to oppose this development as it stands, again not opposed to development per se, but the density of this development. I've been up here many, many times talking about density on Shore Drive. So this isn't something new that you're going to be hearing about. However, some of the items are specific of the reasons behind the decision points of this one that are different than others. You did hear Ocean Park Civic League did vote to oppose this. The Bayfront Advisory Commission also voted to oppose this development. In the ULI study, which was 1997 study that kicked off all the Shore Drive Corridor plans, which you all know about, it does state specifically in there that the communities of Ocean Park and Chicks Beach, where zoning allows a transition from single family to duplex or higher density units, attention should be paid to the results of this intensification. The density of new developments in this area should not overwhelm these two communities, which have made fine homes and neighborhoods for their residents. Again, density, overwhelming, these 24 questions, these words, are used throughout. Staff has shown you on the properties all adjacent to this. If you've noticed they all were B-2s at one time rezoned, removal of commercial property to add higher density developments. All the B-2s along Shore Drive are going away. I understand it's mentioned in here about over commercial, don't over commercialize Shore Drive, I don't think they really meant remove all commercial property and make it all residential. I may have missed that in that discussion. Again per staff, the Comprehensive Plan recommends and you heard it before, future residential uses should strive to achieve the lowest reasonable density to be compatible with existing residential densities. There's no way that this is compatible with the adjacent densities. The largest density right across the street north of Shore Drive, A-18. And the last one I found most interesting, the City Code states for apartment zoning, that it is not the intention to create additional A-24 or A-36 districts. This is an A-24, actually is 31 and a half, something like that. But anyways, if you follow your apartment district code, you shouldn't go above A-18,which is similar to the zoning across the street. So worst case, knock it down to A-18, reduce the densities, sounds like everybody else would be happy with that, reduce the size. If you want to see a structure that's going to be very similar to this, Pine Well Station up on East Ocean View. Look at that, that's 145 units. Massiveness of that does not fit that neighborhood. Mr. Weiner: Thank you, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk: Windy Crutchfield, followed by Amanda Logsdon. Ms. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Crutchfield: Thank you. My name is Windy Crutchfield. And I wanted to say thank you for the opportunity to share my observations and raise my concerns for this project. I have owned a townhouse adjacent to the property since 1992. It's on Ocean Tides Drive. And I wanted to refer to the Comprehensive Plan in my remarks, it's specified in the plans that the council should or the city should advance the interests of the larger community rather than simply responding to the needs of individual property owners. And you can see that the neighborhood has been very unified in their objection to the current proposal. Being that I've had the house across the—town house across the street since 92. I do know that there is a dog park that's there. It's been used by the Mariners Landing neighborhood, it's maintained as a previous speaker was saying, we are very good about maintaining our properties around here. We take care of it, mow it, trim the trees, supply dog waste bags and take the trash to the street weekly. Neighbors used it to bring their dogs out for a stretch when they get home from work. And also neighbors use this path as a crosswalk to or path to the beach. So they actually can see where they would go right through the paper street of Ocean Tides to Shore Drive and then use the crosswalk. So by eliminating that, you are actually taking a public use and changing it to strictly private use. The Comprehensive Plan says that the city should preserve or further 25 enhance the existing residential areas and amenities and Marlin Bay apartments does exactly the opposite. Being a witness to several storm events, there is actually no flooding or drainage issues there. The developer continued to say that the area is 100% impervious. But that is not true and I submitted pictures that show how much green space is there and there's never been a flooding problem there. Also that the development will more than double the density of any parcel in Ocean Park, we've got the expansion of Windsong Apartments, Westminster Canterbury, Point Overture isn't at full capacity yet. So we have all of that to add to the problems with traffic on Shore Drive. So I just wanted to wrap it up by saying it's, this is a stark contrast with the City of Virginia Beach's Comprehensive Plan, and the City's goal should be to protect the vitality of this area. Mr. Weiner: Thank you for your comments, any questions? Thank you. Ms. Crutchfield: Thank you. Madam Clerk: Amanda Logsdon, followed by Matt Thompson. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Ms. Logsdon: Thank you. As an Ocean Park resident and former real estate developer. Mr. Weiner: Ma'am, can you state your name for the record, please? Ms. Logsdon: I will. For the record, my name is Amanda Logsdon. As an Ocean Part resident and a former real estate developer, I think I can offer a unique perspective to the Planning Commission. And I appreciate your time this afternoon. I was born and raised in Virginia Beach and grew up as a devoted resident in service to the community. After graduating from high school and university over 20 years ago, I moved to Northern Virginia to pursue a career in commercial real estate as both a construction and development manager. I have built over 2.5 million square feet of mixed use real estate, studied planning and place making with the Urban Land Institute, and most recently developed and operated a luxury apartment and mixed use building in Arlington, Virginia with 591 apartment units that both complements and supports the surrounding neighborhood. Last year, I moved to Virginia Beach and currently work as a general contractor in the federal space, both at Norfolk Naval and at Little Creek. In April of this year, I purchased a single family home at the corner of Powhatan Avenue and West Stratford; thereby both working and living along the Shore Drive corridor. I believe in smart,strategic,sustainable urban growth. But as currently designed, I cannot support the Marlin Bay development for the following three reasons, parking, egress and storm infrastructure. Parking, currently planned density and parking ratio are not sufficient to support the future apartment residents and their guests. The Three Ships development across the street at a much lower density cannot support the current residents and already 26 overflow onto West Stratford and the surrounding streets. Coupled with public visitors and to the Bay and the Brock Center, the neighborhoods on both sides of Shore Drive will not be able to withstand the added cars from Marlin Bay. This will create more pedestrian safety issues within the neighborhoods and across an already dangerous Shore Drive much like the issues at Marina Shores and Great Neck Road. Egress,the proposed Ocean Tides Drive as egress for the apartments in addition to the Marlin Bay Drive. This intersection is already dangerous and without a streetlight and crosswalks will add to the congestion and danger at Shore Drive. Egress should be limited to entering only at Marlin Bay Drive, or a streetlight should be added. My home for storm infrastructure is one of the original houses to Ocean Park and sits at the lowest elevation in relation to the new development at West Stratford. I think that stormwater tension vaults at Marlin Bay should be increased to support the community's need. In summary, I think that the proposed density is not commensurate with the real residential area, at this portion of Shore Drive. And while I don't oppose multifamily mixed use development, I would ask that the Planning Commission and the stakeholders continue to work with the neighborhoods on these concerns to create a successful project. Mr. Weiner: Thank you for your comments. Any questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Matt Thompson. Mr. Weiner: Welcome. Mr. Thompson: Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. As for the record, I'm Matt Thompson. I raised my family in Ocean Park with my two daughters and one is a Hokie and one is a Duke now. I can just tell you since 2014, when I moved to Ocean Park, it doesn't resemble the same neighborhood. It's disheartening to see the number one the traffic that resembles more like Northern Virginia than Virginia Beach. And that's not an inconvenience to me. I can choose where I live. But it's dangerous. And you have seen as one of my neighbors pointed out very acutely, there's been an uptick in accidents. And it's become very dangerous. In addition to that, the development of these massive structures, and I would point to, and I'm not sure the name of it, the one east of the Lesner Bridge, which, after the Lesner was rebuilt, and put in there has blocked, it takes away from the aesthetic beauty of the area. So it's a situation where we're trying to get our cake and eat it too. And so, I also oppose this not because I oppose this property being developed, but because I oppose it based on the way it is written and being presented. One, it does not meet the definition of rezoning on a conditional permit. Nowhere in this proposal, can I see any criteria that meets mixed use, and as my neighbors have pointed out,the density.The density is a massive issue, and so to your question Ms. Oliver about the Marlin Bay Drive, when everybody brings their friends over for Floatopia, that's where they're going to park. And that's a problem for our neighborhood. So, with that being said, we are certainly open, we understand that this is valuable 27 property, but we would like done in a responsible manner. So thank you for your time. Mr. Weiner: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk: Are Scott or Gaynelle Ayres here, or Phil Rous? Mr. Weiner: Please come up, sir. Please. And what was your name? I am sorry. Mr. Ayres: My name is Scott Ayres. Yeah, I got an email reply. Good afternoon. My name is Scott Ayres, and I've lived in Ocean Park for 35 years. First of all, I would like to thank you for your service. Having volunteered to serve on the Bayfront Advisory Commission for over 20 years, I understand the commitment you make to promote the city's growth to benefit the residents and our future generations. A number of years ago with the assistance of the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office and assisted, we assisted City Council in formulating a plan for the future development of Shore Drive, as was one of the key recommendations of the City funded ULI study. The Shore Drive Corridor Plan and its designed guidelines were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The BAC was also assisted with this process by their liaisons from the Planning Commission and City Council. With their assistance, the plan and the guidelines were approved and made part of the City Comprehensive Plan. With the plan that BAC and the Planning Department now had a mechanism to guide the City's vision for the Shore Drive Corridor and enforceable code to follow, not one to be bent to fit the applicant's needs. Following the design guidelines meant consistent application of the principles for growth within the most densely populated corridor in the city. It is my opinion that the application you're acting on today is in noncompliance with the in place ordinances that were designed to govern growth within the Shore Drive Corridor, and specifically Ocean Park. With the exception of plan review by BAC, there has been no attempt by the applicant to sit down with the Ocean Park community and in good faith discuss what kind of project might benefit the community and the applicant. The applicant's answer to density has been if we don't get this many units to the project, it's not economically feasible. I asked the question whose problem is that? Certainly not the residents of Ocean Park. Ocean Park is not anti-growth or anti-development. The fact is the community looks forward to the development of the property but not as presented today by the applicant. Another fact is that directly across the street from the applicant's property sits a mixed use property. It's the only mixed use property in Ocean Park built and approved under the current guidelines. At first, it did not have the community support. But with the input from the community, Planning staff and the developer the design guidelines were followed. And the community supported the project. The developer followed the Shore Drive guidelines for mixed use. Why shouldn't today's applicant do the same? In my opinion, today's application under the mixed use guideline is a ruse. Virginia Beach, although a very young city... 28 Mr. Weiner: Thank you for your comments, any questions?Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk: Mr. Chair, I believe that's the last of the in person speakers. We have two WebEx speakers remaining. Is there, what's your name?Oh, come on up. Sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize. Mr. Weiner: It's fine, no problem. Welcome, ma'am. Ms. Ayres: Good afternoon. My name is Gaynelle Ayres. I've lived at 3780 Jefferson Boulevard. As my parents did, as my grandparents did, so we've been there for almost 100 years. Ocean Park in the 50s didn't have running water.We didn't have city water. We did get, we had dirt streets, but no public services, fast forward to 2021. We now have city water, but an antiquated sewer and storm sewer system, along with narrow streets, that during an emergency, fire trucks, ambulances have a very difficult time getting by and that's on both sides of Shore Drive, not just on the Bay side. The Bayfront Advisory Committee did a study in 2011 and found that that corridor, Shore Drive Corridor had the highest residential real estate tax assessment per acre in the city. Interestingly, the least public school students per acre that's a big revenue winner for the city. Ocean Park plated in 1912 is one of Virginia Beach's, historic neighborhoods, and one the city should be very proud of. Ocean Park deserves better than the proposed Marlin Bay. On August 3rd 2021, City Public Works issued an update on Phase Four of the Shore Drive Improvement Project. The update states that the existing Ocean Park stormwater system is inadequate. You can ask the project manager Bill Purcell, who says Ocean Park needs major stormwater upgrades. The report states Phase Four will start and maybe start in 2026 and be completed by 2029. Phase Three time schedule, if Phase Three time schedule is any measure of accuracy, Ocean Park will be lucky to see the completed improvements this decade. Without completion of Phase Four, Ocean Park could be devastated by a storm like Ida that we just had. I remember being carried out on an army dock during the Ash Wednesday storm when our house fell in the water. I don't wish this on my family or anyone else's. Marlin Bay would nearly double the number of Ocean Park residents on the south side of Shore Drive and put unbearable strain on the existing Ocean Park infrastructure. And that could easily accelerate the failure during a major storm. This is something we all have to address. Consideration of the project at best should be deferred until the project until Phase Four is complete and environmental study is done. Mr. Weiner: Ma'am, thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any questions? Ms. Klein: No, but I love your glasses. They look good. Ms. Ayres: Oh thank you. 29 Madam Clerk: Is Phil Rous here, R-O-U-S? Okay Terry Browning. Mr. Weiner: Good afternoon. Mr. Browning: Good afternoon. My name is Terry Browning. I am the owner of 3829 Shore Drive along with my two brothers. My parents purchased this property nearly 50 years ago to run our family boat business. We've been in business since 1955 and 20 years into business, we moved to Virginia Beach, we saw the opportunity for growth. Our customer base was here in Virginia Beach, and we could expand our business. We've been operating in Shore Drive. We bought this property as it was look like a viable financial move for my family; we were able to afford this property by selling boats and being in the boat business. We've owned this property; we tragically lost my parents in 1999 in a plane crash. My brothers and I have had to run this business since then. And we found it very difficult now in going forward to support three families out of the boat business. My father and mother bought this property knowing that was going to be our future going forward. And we have lived through all the zoning changes and changes in the City of Virginia Beach.We have owned a beach cottage on Surry Road since 1951. Our family has spent summers in Ocean Park.And as you can imagine, Ocean Park looks quite a bit different now than it did in 1951. But as with everything, we know that things change, laws change, and we move forward, us as property owners tried to deal with these changes and conform to what's asked of us to develop our properties. We're at a point in our property now that we need to move forward and go from where we are now and develop this and try to pick out something on this property that we felt was good for our family and our future, our children, our grandchildren, and was good for the Ocean Park community. We have many choices of many things, we could do on our property. My property is zoned B-2. And I can do quite a few things on that. And soul searching and doing research on this, we felt like this was the best solution we could to go forward to be financially viable for us. I'm just a land leaser in this deal. I'm not the builder. But this is going to take care of my family in future years. And I know people are opposed to change, but change happens. And I want to thank you for consideration of this. And I feel like we need to move this project forward. I think this is the best we can do with this property. And with the rules they change now and the infrastructure needed, it does take this to build to be viable, financially viable. Mr. Weiner: Thank you sir, any questions? Thank you. Madam Clerk: Mr. Chairman, I believe that was our last in person speaker. We have two WebEx speakers remaining, Kim Mayo, followed by Martin Thomas, Ms. Mayo, if you would please wait two to three seconds and then state your name and begin your comments, please. 30 Ms. Mayo: I'm Kim Mayo, and I oppose this. I'm not personally against all development or change. I've lived many places including our Shore Drive Corridor for over 25 years. But I am against over development and its unintended consequences. Some on our Planning Commission unfortunately have a reputation for favoring big developer interests over citizens, especially in our neighborhood. Let's let McCleskey build under by right zoning. It would have far fewer negative consequences on our community. Those negative impacts include burdens on police given the current staffing shortages, increased pollution, noise, infrastructure challenges more traffic and impacts on our quality of life. Per my expertise as a conservationist, often the cost of development outweigh the tax benefits and I'm talking about actual dollar costs here, not just hidden costs. After Windsong and Tower of Westminster people are fed up. Residents having their sunlight blocked and rights infringed upon. My dear friend, a retired local college professor had a multi-story condo built right next to her property. Her charming cottage was literally engulfed by it. After 40 years of living there live oaks were ripped down, birds she loved so much disappeared. We can hardly turn our car around in her driveway anymore.And I truly believe the stress from this contributed to her stroke. That's what's happening. Her story needs to be heard. Who is protecting the rights of existing property owners.Specific to Marlin Bay apartments, I agree with civic leaders of Ocean Park and many surrounding communities and this is not in keeping with our master plan regarding density for Pleasure House Point or the Shore Drive overlay. Four and a half story buildings and 197 units is not low to medium density which is 12 to 18 units per acre and in keeping with the surrounding area. The proposed height and giant building size is not complimentary or in keeping with residential or commercial uses in the area. The height and size will overwhelm existing residential uses. Expert testimony from one of your own former planning council members as we heard shows the property across the street first came in as a four story building. The developer was asked to redesign the project to be consistent with the surrounding area, Staff cannot support the proposal. Why then should McCleskey get special treatment? Regarding Pleasure House Point, how would this high density development in a flood zone be complimentary? Our tax dollars have made a huge investment protecting this open space gem. The master plan reads quote "ensure that any development is complimentary with regard to both design and land use to our natural resource and open space amenity Pleasure House Point." It clearly is not. Based on my expertise on open space the idea of building high density developments is not in keeping with the surrounding area that about conservation land without proper environmental impact studies is not a best practice. Many who use Pleasure House Point have dogs and more fences with strain and further pollute our Lynnhaven River. I like seeing stars and not bright lights. Many other cities require the mitigation of light pollution on new development. Madam Clerk: Our final speaker today is Martin Thomas. Mr. Thomas, if you would wait two to three seconds and then please state your name and begin your comments. 31 Mr. Thomas: Hello. My name is Martin Thomas. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I appreciate all your service. I know what it's like to serve on a public body. I know the challenges, often thankless; I've been a resident of Ocean Park for 60 years. live on Roanoke Avenue. I'm not going to go over. I'm an attorney. And luckily everybody else has already said most of what I wanted to say so you don't get bored by another attorney. But I would like to comment on a couple of the aspects. As Mr. Solomon pointed out, you know, the Bayfront Area is unique in and of itself. But the ULI study singled out Ocean Park is being a different character than the rest of the Bayfront community.And it recommended that we not engulf it by having multi use, I mean multifamily projects that are incongruent with the duplexes and single family homes that primarily occupy Ocean Park. One of the members of the Commission mentioned that there was a lot of abandoned retail in the area. That doesn't exist on the west side of Lesner Bridge, which is Ocean Park. There are no abandoned retail places along there. And quite frankly, I'm not opposed to development. And I've wanted that lot developed for a long time. But I like to see real mixed use development. I'm not opposed to apartments either. But this is not a real mixed use development. This is tacking on a boat existing business to call it mixed use. It's not adding any retail. Why not have a mixed use on this lot, have some retail with some other parcels above it. One of the reasons that it's been difficult to develop retail along Shore Drive is because the commercial lots are so shallow. This is a deep lot that would allow for a lot of different uses in commercial vein, including mixed use. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk. I don't want to go over what everybody else has said although I agree with most of what they said. I just urge you to consider the ULI study and consider the impact on this neighborhood which is a very unique neighborhood. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk: No more speakers. Mr. Weiner: No more speakers. All right. Ms. Murphy. Ms. Murphy: Good afternoon. Thank you all for your patience. I'll be very brief. I just wanted to address a few issues. Specifically, the B-4 SD District which is the one that we have proposed the conditional rezoning to specifically allows for density of 36 units per acre.What we've proposed is just over 31 units per acre. I know speakers have spoken about the apartment districts and infill in the apartment districts. This B-4 SD District is unique to Shore Drive and it was part of the Shore Drive Overlay and it provides for a mix of uses. I know a lot of folks when they think mix of uses they think Town Center and that's vertical. The Shore Drive mix of uses is really meant to be horizontal. If you look at again The Pearl,you've got the Surf Rider and you've got the apartments. It's not all in the same - in the same building. So this is conceptually very different than the Town Center type area. With regard to parking, there are 390 parking spaces, 358 are multifamily, 32 are for the 12,000 square foot buildings. The applicant could have because this is mixed use asked for a 32 shared parking arrangement. Obviously, the commercial use times especially with the boat sales is going to be different from the residential. So there will more likely than not be an excess of residential spaces because the residents are parking when the businesses are not necessarily open. What I've heard a lot about is parking on Marlin Bay Drive. If you look at the city's website, Pleasure House Point is 118 acres of city open space. It's part of the Parks and Recreation Department. And it's public for the whole city. The website says the parking is on Marlin Bay Drive because frankly, there is no other way to get into Pleasure House Point. Beaches on Shore Drive, which, you know, I live in the city, I frequent them just as much as anybody else. They are public beaches, and you know, where you have public beaches, it sounds like you're going to have parking issues. My family was in town last weekend; we left for the beach at 12:30. I told them that was too late and we couldn't find a parking space. So we went back home and went to the pool. You know, those challenges it sounds like are challenges that have to do with the public spaces, more so than what we're proposing. Obviously, this is going to be self parked; we're going to have more than enough parking on-site for the both of the uses. A lot of has been made of the character of the neighborhood, the fact that this is, you know, a residential neighborhood. This specific area because it's right along Shore Drive is in what the city staff report called the mixed zone. And the staff report finds that the density and use is appropriate in the mixed zone as a transition. So where you have a highly travelled, you know, major arterial roadway, you're going to want some sort of a transition back to the residential, the more single family residential uses.This type of use is a transitional use that would be appropriate. There was an Ocean Tides Drive and I think Ric Lowman came up for this as well. The part that we're closing is, is here, it's not used by anybody for vehicular access other than the boat facilities, I think she had a concern that this— somehow this was being closed. This is not being closed at all. It's just within the parcel itself. And as the viewers who are required to go out and look at the request for a street closure have indicated there are other ways to get across more specifically the signalized intersection where folks can walk across and nobody can actually use a car now, other than the folks entering the Browning and Lynnhaven Marine facilities. What they were looking at, I think, was people who might be walking to get across Shore Drive. But again, they found there wouldn't be a public inconvenience because you've got the signalized intersection to get folks across. The purpose of the landscaping,which is a Category Four landscape buffer, it will be 15-feet wide, the trees will grow up to 30 feet; you've got bushes that are grow up to five feet. The intention of that is to provide that buffer and really they'll just because of the view shed and the line of sight they'll screen a lot of the duplexes that back up there. There were comments made about height, I'm not sure where they came from. The staff report indicates that the section facing the intersection is three stories, which was a major reduction in height and in density from what was originally proposed. But the four and a half stories where that comes from is the parking garage. So, stories in a parking garage don't have the same height as stories in a residential building. So, the four stories in those wings of the 33 building will actually shield the parking garage. So, we're talking four and a half stories that's really kind of a misnomer. As far as maintenance as was mentioned, the Terry Peterson Companies and the McCleskey and Browning families are long term owners. They're not going to be selling this project. They will maintain it the way they've maintained all of their projects and properties in the city. And in some cases as was mentioned, they don't have a mandatory civic league or a property owners association. The maintenance of this facility will be top notch. I mean you can't say that for every area of the city where you don't have a commercial entity doing the maintenance. Proffer number four, there was a mention of lighting, proffer number four details that lighting on the property will be limited to that which is necessary for security and safety purposes, and it will comply with applicable law. So it'll be shielded to prevent glare and spill over onto other properties. This really is as we've heard, and as the staff report indicates the highest and best use for this property, it will be a tremendous upgrade, and really provide a gateway feature into Shore Drive and into the city itself. I'm happy to answer any questions. I think Ric Lowman can address traffic, but I think the traffic study and the professional review of that have indicated that there will not be a negative impact on traffic in the corridor and at the intersections. Mr. Weiner: Any questions to Ms. Murphy? Ms. Oliver: Ms. Murphy, I just want to clarify because you touched —when you first started on Marlin Bay, there's a new median break for the entrance to the parking garage. Further down on Ocean Tide, there is a median break. You're not closing that. Ms. Murphy: No, we're not doing anything with that section of Ocean Tides at all. Ms. Oliver: Just wanted to be very clear on that. Thank you. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? Jack? Mr. Wall: So where are the dumpsters going to be located? Ms. Murphy: The dumpsters will actually be at the rear, John do you want to address? Mr. Peterson: They're proposed in this area. Mr. Wall: Okay. Yeah. Simple enough, I mean, that's my, the follow up. I mean, your dumpsters when they, when they slam those things down. you can hear it a half a mile away. Mr. Weiner: While you're up here real quick. Nobody's really touched base on what's going on in Shore Drive part of the apartments to Shore Drive, the sidewalk and everything, what's happening up there? 34 Mr. Peterson: You are asking me? Mr. Weiner: Yeah, sorry. Mr. Peterson: The first of all as you know, that area is drained by ditches. And so we're going to —we would be proposing to do curb and gutter. And then there would be a verge from that curb to the proposed 10 foot wide multi use path, which is again called for all the way the whole length of Shore Drive. And then there would be an additional setback to what would be the entrances out of the first floor apartments, so bit of a unique feature to try to create a more residential feel on the street,where there would be stoops that would actually exit out of the apartments down onto that multi use path. And then there's an additional main entrance way right where the pointer is, which is kind of another entrance into the entire building. And then, of course, landscaping and trees and everything that don't exist today. Mr. Weiner: Yes sir. Mr. Inman: And where are the other entrances to the building besides the one you just pointed to off of Shore Drive? Mr. Peterson: This is the main entrance right here. You come in here and there'll be a leasing office. And that's a direct line through to the community center, recreation center. You also have, you have garage entrances, here and here. So access to the interior of the building will be secure. Mr. Inman: And on the buffer that's between the lower wing of the building and the houses that backup to that, would you describe what that buffering is going to consist of? Mr. Peterson: As I mentioned before, I don't have specific species, our goal is, of course,to have them be as tall as they can be for screening purposes,just to clarify, the 15 feet is the width of that easement. I mean, I'm sorry, the setback and so it's a 15-foot width and then we would plant as taller trees as was practical in that 15 foot width. Mr. Inman: Yeah, the proffer looks like it's or the condition we have in here, trees have been permitted to grow and maintain the minimum height of 20 feet and a shrubs height of 5 feet. Mr. Wall: About to tack on to that, the impacts to the residents sunlight, can you? Mr. Peterson: So this is south, instead the sun essentially goes like this. And these shadows are a bit of an improperly placed. This would be, I am not sure when these would actually, the shadows would actually go this way. 35 Mr. Wall: So the sun's not going to, it wouldn't impact any kind of height of trees or anything wouldn't impact the backyards in terms of sunlight hitting there, if somebody wants to grow something back there, their tomato, you know, something, would you say that this is not impactful to anything that they currently have in terms of sunlight hitting right that? Mr. Peterson: The intent is that,you know, again, shadows go this way.We haven't studied every possible sun angle, but the general idea is that the sun is in the south and shines. Mr. Wall: Right, any impact would probably be in the after late afternoon, if there is an impact. Okay. Building of the site 79 feet, up to elevation 79, which is the site in general or at least, but the storm, so you have to put the stormwater management under? Where's the stormwater draining?What's the general direction of,where it's gonna go once it leaves the site? Mr. Peterson: The outfall is this direction. It's an existing outfall that goes into the,there's actually a BMP inside of Pleasure House Point. And then it discharges into the, into the creek from there. Mr. Wall: So where would the stormwater management facilities? I know they're underground? But I mean, where are they going to be placed? Mr. Peterson: They are all throughout, all the areas that you see. Mr. Wall: So under the green space, under the parking lot. Mr. Peterson: Yes. Mr. Wall: So they are going to be down there. So to install those the sites may even have to be even more so to get, I don't know how tall they're going to one foot, two foot, three foot and you have cover over those. They're in the grounds of sandy soil, so some of that may infiltrate, what I'm getting at is the finished floor elevation, it may be higher than what, 7 to 9, do you know the finished floor elevation at this time? Mr. Peterson: I don't have a specific finished floor elevation, but I don't think it's, I mean, we're certainly not going to build it up any higher than we have to, I mean, it's going to be what's required in order to meet the code. Mr. Wall: Right to drain the site,which and then may bring it up a little bit just for architectural look of the site, okay. Okay. Ms. Murphy: The volume will be brought underground. I mean, currently the water is going north to Shore Drive where there's a drainage and Marlin Bay Drive to the south. And there's no stormwater management at all on the property. 36 Mr. Wall: Right. And it was mentioned, I think somebody said it was, you know, the whole site and probably but not really, I think what's already PD-H1, I think that's not impervious. So, what currently is the Browning property of course is... Mr. Peterson: By the definition of the city stormwater regulations, it is impervious. Mr. Wall: Gravel is impervious for water quality. Okay. Mr. Weiner: Any other questions? No questions? All right, thank you very much. We will close this out and look at Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond: Mr. Weiner. Mr. Weiner: This is your neck of the woods. Mr. Redmond: It is my neck of the woods. I rode my bike up Shore Drive when I was... Ms. Eisenberg: Would you like to care to make... Mr. Redmond:Oh,yes,Thank you for the reminder. I have a disclosure to make.There is a broker in my office; I work in real estate broker, as a real estate broker. There is a broker in my office who does some work for McCleskey and Associates, has a listing that sell some land for them. I do not — I don't participate in any way and that haven't received any remuneration ever from McCleskey or from Terry Peterson or from Mr. Browning or anybody else don't now, so it doesn't affect me in any way. And conflict of interest laws, of course, define me as just as you all would or any other, you know, broker in the real estate business. So, but I wanted to be sure to disclose that and I will be voting and commenting on the application, thank you Tori. Mr. Inman: I have a disclosure to make also,as an attorney I have represented before,another project Terry Peterson, I'm not representing him currently and we don't — I don't have any financial interest in the project, in this project and or any other project they've done so I feel free to vote. Mr. Weiner: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Redmond: I was riding my bike up Shore Drive when I was about 14 years old, wasn't old enough to drive that would have been 79, 1979. So I'm well familiar with this corridor. And I want to be clear that we're talking about the entire Shore Drive corridor, and the Shore Drive plan and the Shore Drive overlay, and the Shore Drive, all of these things that I think we have to view in the broader Shore Drive context, and not merely in terms of Ocean Park. For the life of me, I don't understand how this is going to negatively impact Ocean Park. But I still think we 37 have to recognize that there's more than just this, you know, then just this one little pocket at the corner of Marlin Bay, and Shore Drive, there are a number of things about this application that I think are very attractive, you can stare at that slide and see there's a heck of a lot more green on it than exists today. There's more turf, there's more shrubs, there's more trees, there's stormwater that's going to be installed that doesn't exist today.At the same time, it reduces the impervious cover on site. So it's certainly a much greener application, the infrastructure is clearly an improvement. We don't have any infrastructure in terms of stormwater there today. The architecture, I think, is extremely attractive. I have driven the site in the context of this application five times specifically, including again, yesterday afternoon, and, you know, tried to make myself get lost is very hard, because I'm very familiar with this place, but just sort of noodled around back in the neighborhoods and then turned around and went all the way up to Great Neck Road and came back and just looked at the entire corridor. From this site, I can throw a rock and hit Bay Vista, Chesapeake House, 3556 on the Bay. If I go west, I'm going to run into the shopping center that has the Kroger in it and the four-story Victoria Place and then another small shopping center. On either side of this site are multi story buildings. All throughout the Shore Drive corridor are multi story buildings. Within Ocean Park itself, single family and duplex residences that are three stories themselves. And what's proposed for that corner is three stories. I don't understand. That reminds me of an old joke, How many Virginians does it take to change a light bulb?Three, takes three, takes one to change the bulb and two to admire the old one. And I just don't know what it is we're admiring about this site that would cause us to see that as a negative impact over the broken down storage yard,the building that's got the water stains on it, you know, it's got some of the material peeling off it that I saw yesterday.The streets that are to be closed,aren't streets,they are two dead ends. Somebody said they use it as a dog park. Alright, well, they're not streets, there's no reason to keep open streets that serve no useful public purpose for which we should maintain. And in fact, any redevelopment of that site, those two dead ends are going to be closed, you put a warehouse there, and they're going to need to close those streets. So in any event, you know, if I thought this would in some way damage the Shore Drive corridor, I would be a first guy saying, forget it. And in fact, that's the first thing I said to the applicant, when I first met with them seems like a million years ago that we've been talking about this is. You know, this has to be very high end. And from what I see from the elevations, from the landscape plan, from the infrastructure that's added and frankly, the appropriateness of the building height in the context of this broader character, that's what I'm talking about. I just don't see how this is anything, but a positive addition to the Shore Drive Corridor. And something I think in the end will be proud of. So I'm certainly going to support the application. I'll be happy to make a motion at the time. And then I'll just sit back and let y'all do your thing too. Thank you everyone who came here today. I had a lot of conversations with an awful lot of folks for many, many, many months.And as I said, I've been over there a million times now but I've known 38 it very frankly since I was a boy. So I didn't need to learn a whole lot more. Thank you, Mr. Weiner. Mr. Weiner: Thank you, sir. Yes, Ms. Klein. Ms. Klein: I took everything into account and wrote my thoughts down. So I want to start by saying every developer I've seen from the seat has said that their parking plans exceed the requirements and they've never had a problem with parking. I challenge them to talk directly to their residents. There is never enough parking. I'm very familiar with the housing shortage in my role, density changes are inevitable and cities across the country are revising their zoning guidelines to accommodate this need. In this particular case, however, I take issue most with the type of apartments proposed. If I had known at 18, that how the salary of a social worker translates into the real world I may have reconsidered. The average hourly wage to afford a two bedroom rental in Virginia is slightly under $25 an hour, and it took me more than a few years to reach that number after graduation. I'm a Master's educated professional and I make well below the median household income in Virginia Beach, which is 98,000 as of 2019. The home I purchased in 2018 cost less than half of the median home price of$324,000. My son and I live with our two dogs in a 1000 square foot home with two bedrooms, one and a half bathrooms and a mortgage of about $800 per month. Owning a home is exhausting, and I miss apartment life. And a comparably sized dog friendly apartment in the city starts at $1300, an increase of over 60%. If I'm willing to forego air conditioning that number drops to $1200, renting in Virginia Beach without significant lifestyle changes is fiscally impossible for me. And we are pricing out the younger workforce, we are trying to attract. So for that reason, I will be voting no. Mr. Weiner: Thank you. Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham: I appreciate everybody that came in opposition. I've talked to a number of you and, you know, I live in, I've said it before, and I'm sure you guys are tired of hearing it, but I live in the Great Neck - Shore Drive area I drive by this property, you know, probably five times a week. I grew up in Virginia Beach, probably driven by this property, you know, 1000s of times. I agree with Mr. Redmond, you know, sometimes you kind of look at how it, you know, does it check all the boxes and you look at traffic. And to kind of go over this, this is a reduction in the traffic that could be created by the current zoning. If you were to build what the current zoning allows, you would create more traffic than what this project would create. The project is not going to promote neighborhood traffic. I mean it's right at a corner. People are going to drive in; they're going to go into their parking garage. I don't see them parking in the neighborhood or really driving through the neighborhood. You know, Mr. Redmond talked about the height. I'm not going to go into that. Yeah, some people have mentioned other uses for the property, retail and commercial restaurant.And it said that there's not any vacant buildings on this side 39 of the Lesner Bridge. Well, there may not be right now but there have been in the past and we all know that. At one point, there was a Harris Teeter that was going to go on the other corner of Marlin Bay. I know because I was the developer, I was working with Harris Teeter. And Harris Teeter turned the site down. Because when you in the world of commercial real estate, you look at demographic rings and when you do the demographic rings here, you pick up water, you pick up marsh; you don't pick up that many people. I know. It seems like a lot of people but in the world of commercial real estate, there's not enough demand to say we're going to do all commercial on the site. Matter of fact, one of the other planning commissioners brought up the dumpster. If you put restaurants there, you are going to hear dumpsters, a lot more dumpsters that you're going to hear from an apartment complex. I do think that that other building that's left I think that it has probably a better chance of getting developed or redeveloped or modified for a retail use. If we have this captured audience of apartments right there. You know, I think I view the site is as almost a gateway into the Shore Drive Great Neck Area. It is a very, I mean you look at these, these renderings. This is a very attractive project. Like I said, checks all the boxes. I don't think stormwater is going to be an issue. It's actually they're improving the stormwater. I know that change is sometimes uncomfortable but I do think that Shore Drive, this area, it needs to evolve. This is a great use, it's the highest and best use for the site. And I have talked to a lot of people in your neighborhood that are for and against it. And yeah, there's a lot of people in Ocean Park against it. I have tried to find a reason to not want to see this project approved. I've really tried it, you may not believe that, but I have tried. I'm going to support this project. I think it's great for the Shore Drive corridor. I think it checks all the boxes. I think it's gonna be an improvement. And so anyway, that's I am going to be supporting this project. Mr. Weiner: Thank you Mr. Graham. Who is next? Ms. Oliver: Is Ric still here? Mr. Weiner: Ric Lowman, are you still here? There he is, come on up here, Ric. Ms. Oliver: I hate for you to sit here all day and not, you know, get a chance, somebody asked you a question. Mr. Lowman: Ric Lowman, city traffic engineer, licensed professional engineer. Ms. Oliver: So Ric, just for clarification, on Shore Drive, because there's a lot of conversation about traffic and not traffic. And this morning and in formal, we talked about if by right, we use that piece of property for drive through restaurant and how much traffic that would generate and how much traffic that the apartment complex would generate, basically, the trips in and out for people going to work, and things like that,just for clarity, and how, what this road does. Because I thought what you did 40 this morning was a great presentation. Actually, I thought I knew a lot about Shore Drive till you did that. And I think it would be just good, just sort of put it on the record a little bit. Mr. Lowman: Sure. So the first part of that was the by right, the by right land use and looking at the size of the site, you know, they could put a fast food restaurant on the site by right. With that, it would generate I think, I don't remember the exact numbers. But when you add that together with what they could put on the other part of the site, that zoned, the other part that's not zoned B-2, you could generate about 2000 trips a day. Most of that being the fast food with a drive through. With the apartments, they could generate about 1448 trips per day. So that would mean that there would be a net decrease in trips if this lot was developed with apartment versus a fast food restaurant. So I mean, that's just a fact. As David Bradley mentioned, you know, the trips are going to be different, because the apartments will generate more traffic in the afternoon. When people come home, and it'll generate some traffic in the morning, when people leave for work. Apartments are much different than single family homes, though. So apartments generate much less traffic than single family homes. So all these uses are different, but in the end, the traffic study considered all that. And the traffic study showed that, you know, this development is going to generate 30% less traffic per day, then the by right uses and I agree with that. Ms. Oliver: And then maybe expand a little bit about the type of road that Shore Drive is? Mr. Lowman: Sure,Shore Drive is considered a major arterial, urban arterial in the City of Virginia Beach. I mean, it's one of the, it's really the only,you know, East West streets, you know, north of Virginia Beach Boulevard. And as such it carries a lot of traffic. The one difference between Shore Drive and independence Boulevard is that Shore Drive doesn't have any major intersecting intersections, so it can carry a lot more traffic; your delays on roadways, your major roadways are going to be at your signalized intersections. Independence Boulevard has many signalized intersections that carry a lot of traffic like Rosemont, Independence Boulevard, Lynnhaven. Shore Drive doesn't have many of those big intersections. The only ones that really has is Great Neck and Pleasure House. As we discussed First Court is not that big but it's one of the, it's one of the bigger ones on Shore Drive in that stretch. So Shore Drive has the capability of carrying a lot more traffic because the city can give much more green time to Shore Drive. It doesn't have to give traffic you know, doesn't have to give green time to the side streets because the side streets are very, very light. And Marlin Bay is one of those, you know, light side streets, Marlin Bay slash Shady Oaks. So in that way, you know, Shore Drive can carry a lot more traffic than another, you know, four lane divided urban major arterial roadway, because it just doesn't have that many major intersections. 41 Ms. Oliver: Right. And thank you. Because I think that's extremely important for people to understand that particular artery in our city, and how it used. One thing I would do want to, one of the other things I'd like to ask you about is that, and I don't live on Shore Drive, so I don't know, was that there was a reference to this intersection about accidents? Mr. Lowman: Okay, well, I took some notes. Ms. Oliver: Oh, great. Mr. Lowman: Yeah, I did. So I don't know of the crashes that they were speaking about. But I can tell you we do crash analysis.And we take the last three years of police reports that we have for all the signalized intersections in the city, and all the roadway segments in the city. So these are the numbers that came directly out of our annual report, the latest report being 2017 to 2019. So there's of the 378 signalized intersections that were studied, this intersection rank 194th out of 378. So in the bottom half, we are right about average for crashes, there were 11 crashes in the intersection. And the rank doesn't just count the number of crashes in the intersection. What it does it takes into account all the volume, the volume of traffic, so it's kind of a weighted average. And it also takes into account the severity of the crashes.So this puts this intersection,you know, right in the middle of all signalized intersections, it hasn't risen, you know, from say 2015 to 2017 to this period, you know, it's pretty average about 3.2 to 3.3 crashes a year at the intersection, and nothing really jumps out at us from that. I did check. There haven't been any crashes at the intersection this year, which is good news. There have been two crashes around the intersection one was a rear end crash on Eastbound Shore Drive past the intersection, just east of the intersection. And the other one was a really strange crash on Marlin Bay Drive, where a woman drove down the wrong. And I apologize, it may have been a woman or a man, I just saw a woman's name is part of the crash, but someone drove the wrong way on Marlin Bay. And they were cited for a DUI and it was in the middle of the day. It was weird. Ms. Oliver: Right. So great, thank you. Mr. Lowman: Any other questions? Mr. Weiner: Any other questions for Ric? Thanks Ric. Mr. Wall: It's not traffic, but the parking, people mentioned parking on Marlin Bay a couple of times? Mr. Lowman: Yes. 42 Mr. Wall: And that's not necessarily traffic. But it's there's no parking, or what's the restrictions? Mr. Lowman: The parking on the, I guess the west side of Marlin Bay Drive, it's restricted and I believe its 8 pm to 6 am. Don't quote me on those. But I know, it's to restrict people from parking there overnight and using the park. So that parking was generally for the, you know, for Pleasure House Point, but northbound, I know for at least the first block there's no parking allowed. I couldn't tell you exactly. We have a lot of roads in the city. I could do some research, but I know that southbound. Mr. Wall: Right, it's southbound, right but it's northbound and there's no parking, I mean, they can park there. Mr. Lowman: If it's allowed, they could park there. It's probably parking. Mr. Wall: Public right away. Sure. Okay. All right. Thanks. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Inman. Thanks Ric. Mr. Inman: You are off Ric, for a minute. Mr. Weiner: Yes sir, go ahead. Mr. Inman: I just want to start by saying that we are, as Mr. Graham mentioned,we are looking here to see if this is the highest and best use of the property. And we need to have this in that context. Also, the context of its zone B, half of B-2 the other part is residential. And there are lots of possibilities with B-2 and we've just heard some recent discussion about that. So what do you do with this property and why is it still sitting there after all this time? B-2 is a very liberal, commercial zoning category. Lots of things can be done in B-2 including what we just talked about. The traffic study the restaurant site, possibility. So what did we do with this property,then I heard a lot of even the opposition speaker say that they didn't have a problem with apartments, they just have a problem with these apartments in a way it's designed. Well, actually, the Bayfront Advisory Commission in that report, they said that they were great with the architecture and in fact there was a response to their concerns about architecture that were met by the applicant in terms of reducing the height of that western portion of the structure. But they also wanted the southern portion of the structure reduced. And because they, the applicant said that we can't do it without 197 that's the best we can do to reduce it from 227 to 197.They disapproved the project,although they liked the architecture, as it turned out in the end as I read the report. So apartments aren't bad there according to the sort of a consensus. And so then the developer has to figure out well, okay, they want more aesthetics to the approach from the west. So they set it back, and we reduce the height. And we enclosed parking, which is part of the 43 guidelines that everybody's supposed to be following on apartment developments, not to have parking outside the buildings, right, that's accomplished, that's not cheap to do. But it also sort of forced the building toward the east. And that, unfortunately, is having some impact, obviously, on some homeowners who have spoken to us today, and I respect that they're doing their best to offset that by planting strip, and the height of trees that will be adjacent on that strip to minimize that impact. Were it not developed as an apartment project, it would most likely be developed with a denser housing, and on that southern part of the property, which is zoned for housing now. So it's, and we know that we also have heard people comment about how retail is the problem, I mean getting that's probably a good reason why it hasn't been developed B-2 because everybody's afraid to make the investment in B-2. And I think that the traffic that is generated on Shore Drive, yeah, sure there are times, it's really bad. And I've lived here 40 some years, I've used to live up in the Great Neck area, I've driven Shore Drive a million times, I've been in the traffic. But the 197 units in here are not going to be a significant according that's not my opinion, this is the opinion of experts who have analyzed the data, and analyzed the sources and the time of day and all that business and I don't think the feeling or the impression that traffic is going to be severely impacted or worsened by this project is real. I don't think it's real. So that's my thoughts on it. Mr. Weiner: Thank you sir. Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall: I think the architecture is very good. I think the Peterson Company is great company. I think that, you know, they've worked with the Bayfront Advisory Commission to certain extents, you know, they didn't get quite the approval they were looking for. But they did reduce the number of units. I think it did impact the landscaping upfront on Shore Drive. I think it not proved, but I think it's been shown that the traffic, you know, won't negatively be, shouldn't be negatively impacted or should be negatively, shouldn't be impacted one way or the other. Economics are good, fiscal impacts positively for the city. I think they've shown parking shouldn't be negatively, shouldn't be impacted, negatively impacted. I think they've dodged, you know, a large bullet with when the Pleasure House Point Park was already zoned PDH-1 so that whole area could have been developed, it's huge track of lands. And I'm not sure that anything really is going to satisfy the homeowners within Ocean Park, you know, whatever, whatever goes there. However, the Comprehensive Plan there, this is suburban focus area one. And it's stated there to preserve and protect the character of established neighborhoods. I think the residents see this, that it will impact them negatively, the Bayfront Advisory Commission, the way that this is laid out, as pointed that it will impact the neighborhood. I'm not sure if it is best and highest use for the property. So I plan to not support it. And I will probably support the road closures, but not the project itself. Thank you. 44 Mr. Weiner: Mr. Bradley. Mr. Bradley: I am hoping to have training wheels for another meeting, but I guess I need to take the training wheels off. I'm not too far from what was just discussed. There's a lot of positives with the project, I think it's a good looking apartment complex. And we need apartments in the city. I like the multi-use walkway that's going to be integrated into it. It's got nice landscaping. So, I think the project itself would look good.The fiscal impact,you know, as the former budget director in the city, I guess can't ever get that hat off, I guess. But you know, the fiscal impact is slight in the scheme of things. And I'm not minimizing that residential development generally doesn't pay for itself, because it's not just the roadways in schools. It's the calls for service for EMS and fire and police and more human services workers. So its slight and apartments generally are slightly fiscally positive because of the low school multipliers. But at the end of the day, you know, the stakeholders that live in this community thought that the zoning, you know had a zoning expectation and this is much denser than what they were expecting. And you know, one of the things that stood out to me in the formal discussion, I think the Civic League president brought it up today was this I think it's a second page, we talked about the density. And to me, it is a dramatic change from what the people that moved in that area that have invested in that area,you know,were expecting. Throw in the fact that the Bayfront Advisory Committee, which is a council appointed committee that looks at those issues in that area also did not support it. I'm gonna be voting against the application. Mr. Weiner: Anybody else? Ms. Oliver: So obviously this application, and I'll try not to repeat what everybody's said here. It's been on in the spotlight for quite some time. And interestingly enough, as we all know,we don't have a whole lot of land here left to develop and especially north of the green line. And I've been down in Florida a lot lately,just took my daughter down there to school, my parents live down there. My father was an executive down there for many, many years and Florida is a great state as far as how they seem to do this beautiful dance of single family homes and townhouses and three story and four story apartments and high rises all within the same area of each other. They do it well, and everything's landscaped and there's big, beautiful sidewalks and there's berms and transition from one area to another. And it's something that I always thought Virginia Beach should aspire or attempt or at least try to hit that target on some lines. I think we have not done it more often than we have done it. But my daughter lives in, I think it's a three story it's an apartment. And right down, literally across the street from her is a development called Baldwin Park, absolutely stunning. And right next to that is a high rise and right next to that is the prettiest street with restaurants and apartments on top of that, and a large park and I just thought Virginia Beach should try its very best to do something along the lines of that. And I think that as much as we look at this, it is, you know, 45 we've gotten a garage, which is centered in the building. So for once, we don't have to see a garage, parking garage, which we see a lot of those down at the resort. And so that's concealed.And we've got three stories, four stories, that's not that big. A three story house is not that tall.And a four story building is not that tall. We've got it set back, we've got this beautiful segue of this wonderful walk, front doors that actually face Shore Drive. And it's developed enough so that we can actually, as Mr. Trower had said earlier, granted, unfortunately, the rents are what they are today. I wish we could get around it, Lord knows the one I'm paying for my daughter down in Florida is a lot higher. But that's an economy thing and that's all over. But when you look at this, and as the landscaping matures, and to be able to walk from here across Marlin Bay, use the Brock Center, do all of that I just think that they've done a good job as far as trying to incorporate something that's a little bit higher scale design than what we typically see. So, I like the project and I hope I'd like to see it go forward. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Horsley? Mr. Horsley: Well, I look at these renderings here and then look at the pictures of the site plan, I said wow, what a difference and you know, I understand kind of what the neighborhoods are talking about density but they've really willing to drop down on some of that density and you know, it just like Mr. Inman, the highest and best use and to me right now this looks like the highest and best use for this piece of property. And I think it's more than just the highest and best use, it's an amenity for the city. Go along what Dee just said, you know, I think it's something that, you know, people coming down on Shore Drive and see this. These renderings here, really, I think it's pretty astonishing to have along Shore Drive. I don't live over there, I don't think I could stand to live over there in a place that's that tight and whatever. But a lot of people love it. And a lot of people don't like where I live. So that makes a good mix of everybody. But this is, if I was a young person, young professional person looking for a start and I could come to Virginia Beach and try to find me a job, I think this is somewhere I would probably like to pursue and you know, have that close vicinity to get to the beach and whatever. And I just think it's a good thing and I'll plan on supporting this. Mr. Weiner: Thank you sir, Mr. Coston. Mr. Coston: Yes sir. I kind of want to go along with Robyn here. But money is what the money is. And I don't know how some people afford to start out and live in places like this nowadays and my wife agrees with the community,of course. But I've had probably Mr. Peterson's displeasure of having inspected a few of his properties over the years. And he does a lot better job than a lot of other people in the profession. I mean, I've seen places where I've written three and four pages and wait three or four months to get things corrected when here is the exact opposite. Not that he 46 gets a rubber stamp, but he's proven thus far to be good at what he does, and I'll be supporting. Mr. Weiner: Okay. Real quick. And I'm not going to get back to what everybody else has said. But I'm gonna go in a different direction. I like doing that. I'm gonna bring up something my colleagues are probably tired of me hearing but I have to because it falls in line what this is. So about 10 years ago, I was out there. I was out there where you are. I was sitting out there with you and there was a lot more people here and there was an apartment complex called 525 Apartments of Kempsville, Witchduck and Princess Anne Road. And everybody out there was not in favor of Mr. Horsley, he was up here and he says he remembers me but I don't think he does. And I was out there speaking and that apartment complex is in my backyard in Kempsville and nobody liked it, nobody wanted it, but I thought, you know, this is going to revitalize our area. And right now, there's a 185 apartments in there. And if you ask everybody in the neighborhood today, they'll tell you why we can't, we don't even know anybody lives there. We can't tell cars are coming in and out. It's clean. It brings development to our area. It's revitalizing the neighborhood. It has not lost one penny. Everybody out there said we're gonna lose value on our homes. It has not lost one value in the area. If anything, it's helped our area out in Kempsville. I'm also a member of another committee Envision 2040, which Mr. Horsley there started that committee back in 2012. And back in 2012, we had 440,000 people in the city. Right now we're at about 460,000. And our goal, not our goal, but it's —we're progressing by 2040 maybe have close to half a million people in the city.And where are we going to live?We can't find places to live now. And as Ms. Oliver said, we're running out of room to build. I think we really need to take a step back and decide how we're going to do this and we had to find places for people to live. Oceana if I'm not mistaken, Oceana, working on or is working on bringing another Squadron here. That's close to 3000 people. We just approved 100,000 square foot facility in the City of Virginia Beach last month. It's going to bring 400 to 600 more jobs here to the city. People are coming here to live, people want to live in this corridor. Mr. Redmond said it best back in Marina Shores when they wanted to put the apartment on top of the tennis court. People want to live in your area. I know you don't like it. It's changed. It's called change. But people want to come live in the Shore Drive corridor area. It's a beautiful place to live. They love it. We just have to find places for them to live there. So I'm going to be supporting. Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond: Ms. Eisenberg, do I understand correctly?We need to vote on these six and seven as one item? Eight and nine as another. Ms. Eisenberg: Yes. Mr. Redmond:Okay. Therefore, I move approval of agenda items number six and seven. 47 Mr. Weiner: Street closure. Yes. We have a motion by Mr. Redmond. Mr. Graham: I'll second the motion. Mr. Redmond: Second by Mr. Graham. Madam Clerk: Vote is open. By recorded vote of nine in favor, one against the agenda items six and seven have been recommended for approval. Mr. Weiner: Mr. Redmond? Mr. Redmond: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of agenda items number eight and nine. Mr. Graham: I second the motion. Mr. Weiner: Motion by Mr. Redmond and second by Mr. Graham. Madam Clerk: Vote is open. By a recorded vote of seven in favor, three against agenda items eight and nine have been recommended for approval. Mr. Weiner: All right. That is all we have, any new business, old business. Good. Good. Good. We're adjourned. VOTE for Items 6 & 7 — Street Closures AYE 9 NAY 1 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz ABSENT Bradley NAY Coston AYE Graham AYE Horsley AYE Inman AYE Klein AYE Oliver AYE Redmond AYE Wall AYE Weiner AYE CONDITIONS— STREET CLOSURES 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 48 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the properties and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed areas into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. Said plat shall include the dedication of a 25' wide public drainage easement along the eastern half of the proposed closure area of Ocean Tides Drive, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works, and the City Attorney's Office, which easement shall include a reasonable right of ingress and egress. 3. The applicant or the applicant's successors or assigns shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for the closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company, must be provided. 4. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved for recordation within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. VOTE for Items 8 & 9—Conditional Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit AYE 7 NAY 3 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 Alcaraz ABSENT Bradley NAY Coston AYE Graham AYE Horsley AYE Inman AYE Klein NAY Oliver AYE Redmond AYE Wall NAY Weiner AYE PROFFERS - REZONING The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h)of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to"offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. Proffer 1: When the Property is developed, it shall be as a 197 unit multifamily residential community substantially in accordance with the exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY — VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Layout—April 01, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to 49 the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development (the "Concept Plan"). Proffer 2: When the Property is developed, vehicular ingress and egress to the Property shall be limited to one (1) access from Shore Drive and one (1) access from Marlin Bay Drive substantially as depicted on the Concept Plan. Proffer 3: When the Property is developed,the MARLIN BAY apartment building shall have the architectural design, appearance and exterior building materials substantially as depicted and described on the exhibits labeled "MARLIN BAY NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT — SHORE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH,VIRGINIA, PROPOSED ELEVATION—EXTERIOR MATERIALS", dated April 23, 2021, prepared by Cox, Kliewer& Company, P.C., which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development(the "Elevations"). Proffer 4: All lighting on the Property shall be limited to that necessary for security and safety purposes and to comply with applicable laws and shall be shielded to prevent glare and spillover onto adjacent properties. 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: Staff has reviewed the Proffers listed above and finds them acceptable. They provide assurance that the development of the site will be as depicted on the proffer concept plan, elevations and renderings. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the agreement and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. CONDITIONS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. When the Property is developed it shall be no more than 197 multi-family units with vehicular ingress and egress limited to one(1)access from Shore Drive and one(1)access from Marlin Bay Drive with a layout in substantial conformance with the exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY — VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Layout — April 01, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development(the"Concept Plan"). In no case shall the area labeled "Existing Boat Sales" and the associated parking lot be developed with any dwelling units. 2. Consistent with the concepts of the Shore Drive Corridor Plan adopted by the Virginia Beach City Council on March 28, 2000, the applicant shall construct and provide a public 50 pedestrian/bike easement for the 10-foot wide multi-use trail depicted on the concept plan exhibit entitled, "MARLIN BAY — VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Layout — August 30, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development. The multi-use trail shall be paved with a material acceptable to City Staff and the easement shall be recorded with the Clerk Circuit Court prior to final site plan approval. 3. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted that is in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan entitled, "MARLIN BAY—VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, Conceptual Landscape Plan— August 30, 2021", prepared by Timmons Group, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning and Community Development. A Site Plan shall not be released until the Landscape Plan is approved by the Development Service Center Landscape Architect. Any dead, diseased, or dying plantings shall be replaced by the next planting cycle. 4. The required Category IV landscape buffers shall be planted with evergreen trees and shrubs. The trees shall be permitted to grow and be maintained at a minimum height of 20 feet; the shrubs shall be permitted to grow and be maintained at a minimum height of five (5)feet. 5. Dumpster(s) shall be enclosed with a solid brick wall on three sides in color and material to match the building and any required screening shall be installed in accordance with Section 245(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The freestanding Community Identification Sign shall be located substantially at the location identified on the exhibit referenced in Proffer 1 and limited to a monument style sign with a brick base, no taller than eight feet high and eight feet length, externally lit, constructed with materials and colors that complement the exterior of the apartment building. 7. An iconic, freestanding feature shall be installed on the property as a visual amenity at the entrance from Shore Drive. Said feature shall be depicted on the final site plan and submitted to the Planning Director for review and ultimate approval authority. 8. Any onsite signage shall meet the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and there shall be no neon, other than individual channel letters lighted with internal neon and as approved by the Zoning Administrator, or electronic display signs or accents, installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, in or on the windows, or on the doors. There shall be no window signage permitted. The building signage shall not be a "box sign" and the proposed sign package shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and acceptance prior to the issuance of a sign permit. 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 approvals allowed by this application are valid. 51 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. 52 TASTE FAMILY OF BUSINESSES May 28, 2021 Planning Commission City of Virginia Beach 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Dear Planning Commissioners, I am the CEO and co-owner of the TASTE Family of Businesses. This letter expresses our support for the Marlin Bay Apartments rezoning application on the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission agenda. Our closest TASTE location is located along Shore Drive, 3/4 of a mile west of the subject property. While our store has been successful in this location, the proposed rezoning will provide much needed population growth within walking distance of neighboring businesses like ours. The plans for Marlin Bay are also first class and represent an upgrade for the community over the existing use. We urge the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this rezoning request. To continue to attract businesses and residents to Virginia Beach, we should embrace well designed projects led by long term citizens who care about our community. Please vote yes and continue to move Virginia Beach forward. Jon Pruden CEO 1391 AIR RAIL AVENUE 151 425 3011 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23455 WWW.TASTEVA.COM Hoa N. Dao From: Page Miyares <page@atkinsonrealty.com> Sent: Tuesday,June 1, 2021 6:02 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: please use this letter..marlin bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I apologize but my first email had a typo in it. Please use this version for the planning commissioners. May 29, 2021 Planning Commission City of Virginia Beach 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Dear Planning Commissioners, This letter is in support of the Marlin Bay Apartments rezoning application on the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission agenda. As a Realtor constantly working to solve housing problems within the community, I support this project as one that would bring attractive housing options to our citizens and improve the Shore Drive corridor. Most importantly, in a time where affordable housing and quality new housing is greatly needed, this project should be seen as a crucial one to that area of the city. Currently, this property is an eyesore for Shore Drive, in desperate need of redevelopment. This project would greatly improve the ascetics of Shore Drive for all its citizens and give a fresh, welcoming lift to a major entry point for our visitors, who are here to spend their hard-earned income in our resort city. In addition, this proposed project is consistent with the land use guidelines outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. Lastly, it will add to the tax revenue base for the City of Virginia Beach to further help meet the financial goals of our city, such as capital improvements to our stormwater drainage systems. This is a well-designed, attractive, environmentally conscious project that deserves to be supported. To be a city that continues to stay ahead of progress, the demands of the modern citizen, and economic reality of our time, this project should be approved. Please vote yes to improving our city. Truly yours, Page Atkinson Miyares Page Miyares Atkinson Realty, Broker Circle of Excellence- Platinum 932 Laskin Road Virginia Beach Licensed broker in the Commonwealth of Virginia Search for your new home at Atkinson Realty 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Nell Hauck <nell.hauck@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 2:03 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Support Letter for Marlin Bay Rezoning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. May 28,2021 Planning Commission City of Virginia Beach 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 RE: Letter of SUPPORT for Marlin Bay Apartments Dear Planning Commissioners, This letter is in SUPPORT of the Marlin Bay Apartments rezoning application on the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission agenda. The proposed project is consistent with the land use guidelines outlined in the Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Ordinance,the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. In addition to the project being in line with City guidelines,the project also provides the following benefits to our community. • Redevelops an important gateway property into an attractive building with coastal architecture. • Provides quality new housing stock to a desired section of Virginia Beach with aging housing options. • Improves the frontage along Shore Dr with landscaping and the multi-use path further along Shore Drive without taxpayer dollars. • Creates a landscaped streetscape along both Shore Drive and Marlin Bay that will be well maintained with on-site management. • Improves parking for residents by providing a garage that is weather protected and secure, but hidden behind the building to ensure great architecture from all sides. • Significantly reduces the impervious area and improves the storm water currently impacting the site, neighborhood,and Shore Drive. • Adds net new tax revenue for the City of Virginia Beach to further address stormwater solutions and beach erosion. • Generates more revenue for local businesses surrounding the proposed development as the increase in residents in the neighborhood will bring more patrons to local businesses,which will be very beneficial as the City continues to return to pre- pandemic operations. To continue to attract businesses and residents to Virginia Beach,we must support modern housing options within sections of our City where existing and new residents want to live. We as a City should embrace well designed projects led by long term citizens who care about our community. Please vote YES and continue to move Virginia Beach forward. Sincerely, Nell Hauck, CPA, MSA 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Clarke, Ben <Ben.Clarke@colliers.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 9:47 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay: Letter of Support Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, This letter is in support of the Marlin Bay Apartments rezoning application on the June 9, 2021 Planning Commission agenda. As a commercial real estate agent, it is my professional opinion that a retail is not the best use here. Due to the changing retail economy and the lack of households, you would likely have a difficult time leasing here with quality tenants The existing retail/restaurant tenants need more customers in this area, not more competition. Quality new housing is greatly needed, this project should be seen as a crucial one to that area of the city. This property is ripe for redevelopment. This project would greatly improve the ascetics of Shore Drive for all its citizens and give a fresh, welcoming lift to a major entry point for our visitors, who are here to spend their hard-earned income in our resort city. In addition, this proposed project is consistent with the land use guidelines outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. Lastly, it will add to the tax revenue base for the City of Virginia Beach to further help meet the financial goals of our city, such as capital improvements to our stormwater drainage systems. This is a well-designed, attractive, environmentally conscious project that deserves to be supported. To be a city that continues to stay ahead of progress, the demands of the modern citizen, and economic reality of our time, this project should be approved. Please vote yes to improving our city. Sincerely, Ben Clarke 1 Benjamin Clarke Associate Direct+1 757 217 1877 I Mobile+1 757 635 0901 Main+1 757 490 3300 I Fax+1 757 490 1200 ben.clarkecolliers.com Colliers International 150 West Main Street I Suite 1100 Norfolk,VA 23510 I United States www.colliers.com C oil lc rs This e-mail and attachments is intended only for use by the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential material.Any retransmission,copying or other use of this e-mail and any attachments hereto by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.Nothing herein should be considered an electronic signature. 2 June 3,2021 Planning Commission City of Virginia Beach I am a long time resident of the Bayfront community,a former business owner on Shore Drive and past member of the Bayfront Advisory Commission and wish to express my support of the proposed residential project at Marlin Bay. The ULI study of the Shore Drive Corridor adopted by City Council in 2000 defined the area throughout its report as first and foremost a residential community with well-defined character with an array of housing styles and types that should continue to form the backbone of land use for the area. This project,in my opinion,fits this vision. With its tasteful design this project can add immensely to the appearance of this major gateway to our city by the private sector. City budget constrains can barely address roadway improvements which have been lagging for decades in this corridor. The best one can hope for in the future for this property is another standard cookie cutter boxed building for commercial rental which I don't believe is even financially feasible for an investor. I respectfully the Commission and City Council to facilitate a workable common sense compromise to cease this opportunity. Kal Kassir 2009 Alphine Road Virginnia Beach,VA 23451 June 3, 2021 Planning Comm i lion City of\cirri. Beach 2875 Sahre Street, Suite Situ Virginia Beach, VA 234.52 1)4:ar P nryin Cilnimissioncrs. This letter is in support of the Marlin Bay Apartments rezoning application on the June 9, 2021 Planning Ct itrtrn.ss.L3rt agenda. The proposed project is consistent with the 'land LJ.-L guidel neS outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance. the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. In addition to thz project being in line with City guidelines, the project also provides the following benefits to the Shore Drive community. • Redevelops an important piece ofpropert ° along the Shore Drive corridor into an attractive building with coastal architecture ■ Provides quality new housing to a desired section of Virginia Beach along the Shore Drive corridor ■ Ex Lends the multi-use path further along Shore Drive and improves the Shore Drive warmirnity without taxpayer revenue t Creates beautiful landscaping along both Shore Drive and Marlin Bay that will be well maintained with on-site management ▪ Improves parking for residents by providing a garage that is weather protected and secure, but hidden behind the buildinc to ensure great architecture from all sides * Improves the storm water management system currently impacting the site, neighborhood, and Shore Drive • Reduces the amount of im rvious area from the existing u: • Adds net new tax revenue for the City or Virginia Beach to further address storm water rnanavrnerit and beach erosion ;3 longtime is c e al of 'Virginia 13cjch, [ led we must support modern housing options like the Marlin Bay Aparmumt project which will conlinuc to attract new residents and businesses to our arca. Please vote ycw to the Marlin Bay Apartment project and continue to move Virginia Beach in ;t positive direction, Sincerely, Tim Fitzpatrick September 2, 2021 Planning Commission City of Virginia Beach 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Dear Planning Commissioners, I live in the Baylake Pines community; near Shore Drive and in close proximity to this proposed project. I am in support of the Marlin Bay Apartments rezoning application. It is my understanding that the application is in keeping with the Zoning Ordinance, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. The buildings' architecture will be an improvement to Shore Drive (vs. what is existing today.) This is important as Shore Drive serves as a major "gateway" into Virginia Beach. I am familiar with other projects by this developer. I am confident that this project will result in the same high-quality product, attractive landscaping, and thoughtful design that is exhibited by their numerous other successful projects. We, as a City, should encourage development that creates needed housing inventory and generates significant net tax revenue. I believe that you should, and I hope that you will, vote to approve this rezoning application. Si ly, Reese Smi 2229 Bayville Road, irginia Be c , Virginia September 3, 2021 Planning Commission City of Virginia Beach 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Dear Planning Commissioners, This letter is in support of the Marlin Bay Apartments rezoning application on the September 8, 2021 Planning Commission agenda. The proposed project is consistent with the land use guidelines outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, and the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. In addition to the project being in line with City guidelines,the project also provides the following benefits to our community. • Redevelops an important gateway property into an attractive building with coastal architecture • Provides quality new housing stock to a desired section of Virginia Beach with aging housing options • Extends the multi-use path further along Shore Drive without taxpayer dollars • Creates a landscaped streetscape along both Shore Drive and Marlin Bay that will be well maintained with on-site management • Improves parking for residents by providing a garage that is weather protected and secure, but hidden behind the building to ensure great architecture from all sides • Improves the storm water currently impacting the site, neighborhood, and Shore Drive • Adds net new tax revenue for the City of Virginia Beach to further address storm water solutions and beach erosion To continue to attract businesses and residents to Virginia Beach, we must support modern housing options within sections of our City where existing and new residents want to live. We as a City should embrace well designed projects led by long term citizens who care about our community. Please vote yes and continue to move Virginia Beach forward. Sincerely, Resident of Ocean Park 2238 Roanoke Avenue From: moscovitz2(@vahoo.com Subject: 227 Unit Apartment Rezoning Proposal Date: Wednesday, May 27,2020 8:26:38 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello. We are longtime Ocean Park residents and strongly oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. We do not oppose all development but we want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. We feel this project as stated will not enhance life in our Virginia Beach community. Thank you for your service and consideration. Sincerely, Scott and Ruth Ann Moscovitz From: Phil&Mary ROUS To: William R.Landfair Subject: Against rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr.and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. Date: Wednesday,May 27,2020 5:32:20 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Phil Rous and I am an Ocean Park homeowner and resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. In accordance with the Shore Drive overlay a parcel of 4 acres or more can have 36units per acre which is 108 not 227. The current proposed density is not in line with the neighborhood we bought into and want to continue to live in. This proposal is not in line with Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan and it would impact the Emergency response time for Ocean Park area. Respectfully I request you deny this proposal in keeping with the community overlay plan and quality of life of the area. Phil Rous 3712B Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach, VA 23455 Sent from my iPad From: Randy Betz To: Bob M.Dyer Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Cc: Barbara Mease;tinacalayo(agmail.com;Median Betz;R.David Betz Subject: Against rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Monday,June 8,2020 8:18:50 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Randall W. Betz, a homeowner in Ocean Park (Aeries on the Bay). I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. The proposed residence density would be absolutely too much for this neighborhood. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the Ocean Park area quality of life. There is also an opportunity to expand the outstanding focus on nature that nearby Pleasure House Point affords Virginia Beach residents such as providing green space and an extended bicycle/pedestrian path. Randall W. Betz 2344 Rookery Way Virginia Beach,VA 23455 From: Ann Tatman Bennis To: Bob M.Dyer Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCa�icloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: CONCERN OVER REZONING REQUEST BY MARLIN BAY APARTMENTS Date: Monday,June 1,2020 12:49:39 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Gentleman: My name is Ann Bennis and I am a longtime resident of Ocean Park. I am also a registered voter and I act on that privilege at every opportunity. I am writing to you to OPPOSE the request by Marlin Bay Apartments to increase density from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. My concerns are that the proposed apartments more than double the accepted standard for units per acre. HIGH DENSITY is not in the best interest of my community. I am concerned about the environmental impact the building will have on PLEASURE HOUSE POINT which is an asset to our City and must be protected. I am seriously concerned about the PARKING ISSUES this density will create for PHP and the surrounding neighborhoods. There will also be a SIGNIFICANT BURDEN on our EMS/FIRE Services. I respect long term planning and progress for our City, however, approving this change is NOT IN COMPLIANCE with our approve VIRGINIA BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I understand that the City and the citizens would benefit by more revenue. However, it should be in line with the stated community values and SUPPORT not ERODE the quality of life we enjoy. Thank you for representing my concerns in this matter. Ann Bennis From: Dawn Hrelic To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(aicloud.com;aalcarazvboc(aicloud,com; warahamVBPCOicloud.com;horslev don(Tvahoo.com;mainman(ainmanstrickler.com;branch.oliver(algmail.com; iohnhcostonCalamail.com;JtKleinVBPC(a�icloud.com;ickwallr aol.com;dweiner(abatchelderbrick.com;Louis R. Jones;James L.Wood;tanklines(aaol.com;aversmoraan(agmail.com;Fchristie3(acox.net;walkatdamCa�aol.com; pdavenort9(@cox.net;aeefaison(a)amail.com;whearst(averizon.net; Sshiflet35(alvahoo.com; Mthomas2001(tamail.com Subject: Concerned resident Date: Wednesday,June 17,2020 9:44:00 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Dawn Hrelic and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Sent from my iPhone From: Donna Underhill To: William R.Landfair Subject: Concerns for Marlin Bay Apartment Project Date: Saturday,June 20,2020 9:16:18 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Committee My name is Donna Underhill and as an Ocean Park resident, I oppose increasing the density and rezoning for the Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. Furthermore, this development will take away very necessary habitats for land and water animals that live along Marlin Bay at the Pleasure House Point Natural area. The Shore drive corridor is already over-burdened and the infrastructure will not support the additional population. Sincerely Donna Underhill 757-651-0566 From: Jrichardson39 To: William R.Landfair Subject: Conditional use permit hearing Date: Sunday,June 7,2020 8:49:25 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: GPIN 2417656259 I vote NO to 1047 Coastaway Drive requesting this Conditional Use Permit. I have lived here and own my home here with my family in Seabridge Square for 20 years. This is a family orientated community for many years and hope that it continues to stay that way. This permit would deteriorate the community that is very valuable to me and my family.Traffic,parking problems and crime would increase and negatively impact an already small neighborhood.Not to mention frequently changing tenants that do not know the values we have here and coming into an already established community who are very protective of their hard earned property. Those of us who live here for many years have the right to feel safe and secure in addition to the safety of our children that play in this neighborhood that surround this address without the worry of problems this would bring. Thank you for your attention to my concern in this important matter. L. Richardson Sent via the Samsung Galaxy,an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone From: mary faust To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea; William R. Landfair dredmond(oicloud.com Subject: Developer"s request for a 227 unit apartment structure Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Wednesday,June 3,2020 2:11:06 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, My husband and I are both strongly opposed to the rezoning of these apartments on several grounds: 1. They are rentals as opposed to owner occupied housing. Owner occupied homes are more compatible with the surrounding area and owners are more invested in the community. 2. The density density density. Really, it is too many units in this space. 3. Issues with parking. Parking is at a premium here already. We live adjacent to Marlin Bay Drive and can readily observe the comings and goings at Pleasure House Natural Area, so we can assure you that such a complex will create more problems with illegal parking than what already exists(obstruction of fire hydrants, running up on the curb, parking after dark, which is currently prohibited). 4. Stress on the current infrastructure including roads, schools and emergency services. While we are not opposed to development in its entirety, many fewer units supported by on-site parking would be a better fit for this neighborhood, in our opinion. Repectfully, Mark and Mary Faust From: Kate L To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc4icloud,com;aalcarezvboc4icloud.com; warahamvboceicloud.com;Jiorsley don(@vahoo.com;mainmaneimanstrickler.com;branch.oliver(&amail.com; johnhcoston(a)amail.com;rkleinvbDc(aicloud.com;ickwalMaol.com;dweiner4batchelderbrick.coni Louis R, )ones;James L.Wood Subject: Development on Shore Drive Date: Friday,June 12,2020 4:11:02 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello all, I'm writing to oppose the rezoning for the proposed apartment complex at Marlin Bay&Shore Drive.We are homeowners and constituents within the Ocean Park community and the development as proposed will only further the neighborhood's already immense traffic and density issues.The corridor cannot handle an additional 200-500 cars daily,and the zoning limitations were put into place to avoid this exact issue. Thank you for hearing our concerns and we appreciate all you are doing to bring eco-friendly,reduced traffic solutions to our neighborhood and city. All the best, Kate Lewis 3729 Surry Road Virginia Beach,VA 23455 From: Rebecca Gowdv To: Bob M. Dyer; Mark E.Shea; William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocPicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;)ames L.Wood Subject: Do NOT Rezone For Marlin Bay Aptsn""" Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 11:53:33 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi,my name is Rebecca Lynn Gowdy and I am an Ocean Park homeowner.I strongly oppose the request to increase density and resining for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development,but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you!!! Rebecca Gowdy From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW: Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 5:53:41 PM From:jilt@cavaliercc.hrcoxmail.com<jill@cavaliercc.hrcoxmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 2, 2020 1:29 PM To: Bob M. Dyer<BDyer@vbgov.com>; Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com>; Irjone@vbgov.com Subject: CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Jill Zemla and I am an Ocean Park Homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to condition B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. From: Kevin P.Kemp To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN:Citizen Concern-L.Mullins(PLN,re:Marlin Bay Apts.Rezoning Item) Date: Monday,June 1,2020 3:51:43 PM Attachments: jmaae003.onq jmage004.onq jmage002,Dng From: Kathryn A. Hinson <KHinson@vbgov.com> Sent: Monday,June 1, 2020 3:14 PM To: Howard W. Waldie<HWaldie@vbgov.com>; Kevin P. Kemp<KKemp@vbgov.com> Cc: Nancy L. Bloom<nbloom@vbgov.com>; Chris L. Chandler<CLChandle@vbgov.com> Subject: RE: Citizen Concern - L. Mullins (PLN, re: Marlin Bay Apts. Rezoning Item) Thank you Howard Kathy Hinson Executive Assistant to the Mayor City of Virginia Beach Office of the Mayor 2401 Courthouse Drive, Building 1, Room 234 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 757-385-4581 Mayorsoffice@vbgov.com Khinson@vbgov.com From: Howard W. Waldie<HWaldiePvbgov.com> Sent: Monday,June 1, 2020 3:13 PM To: Kathryn A. Hinson <KHinsonPvbgov.com>; Kevin P. Kemp<KKemp( vbgov.corrm> Cc: Nancy L. Bloom<nbloomPvbgov.corn>; Chris L. Chandler<CLChandlePvbgov.com> Subject:Citizen Concern- L. Mullins (PLN, re: Marlin Bay Apts. Rezoning Item) Importance: High Good Afternoon Kathy and Kevin: A resident, Lela Mullins of 3954 Aeries Way(23455), contacted the Mayor's Office to voice her opposition to the planning item for rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments to allow for expansion, etc. Ms. Mullins stated she lives directly across the street from the property in question, on the corner of Shady Oaks Drive and Shore Drive, and wanted to make sure the Mayor was aware of her opposition.She has also contacted the offices of(and left messages for) Vice Mayor Wood and Council Member Jones. Ms. Mullins further stated that a flyer is going around from those heavily involved with the Civic League encouraging contact to voice opposition,so you may get further calls/emails. Should she need to be contacted, she may be reached at(757)464-1361. Thank you for your time. In service, Howard W. Waldie IV Assistant to the Deputy City Manager Human Services Portfolio Office: (757) 385-4242 I Desk: (757) 385-1181 2401 Courthouse Drive, Bldg. 1, Rm. 234 Virginia Beach,Virginia, 23456 hwaldiePvbgov.com `„ Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: edwards617 oC�cox.net To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:Concerns for Marlin Bay Apartment Project Date: Sunday,June 14,2020 2:04:06 PM Importance: High CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Resending to correct typo From: edwards617@cox.net<edwards617@cox.net> Sent:Sunday,June 14, 2020 2:02 PM To: 'bdyer@vbgov.com'<bdyer@vbgov.com>; 'meshea@vbgov.com' <meshea@vbgov.com>; 'wlandfair@vbgracov.com' <wlandfair@vbgracov.com>; 'dredmondvbpc@icloud.com' <dredmondvbpc@icloud.com>; 'wgrahamvbpc@icloud.com'<wgrahamvbpc@icloud.com>; 'horsley_don@yahoo.com' <horsley_don@yahoo.com>; 'branch.oliver@gmail.com' <branch.oliver@gmail.com>; 'johnhcoston@gmail.com' <johnhcoston@gmail.com> Subject:Concerns for Marlin Bay Apartment Project Importance: High Planning Committee My name is Stephanie Edwards and as an Ocean Park resident, I oppose increasing the density and rezoning for the Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. Furthermore,this development will take away very necessary habitats for land and water animals that live along Marlin Bay at the Pleasure House Point Natural area. The Shore drive corridor is already over-burdened and the infrastructure will not support the additional population. Sincerely Stephanie C. Edwards 757 869 2314 From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: RC Increasing Density and Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:16:51 AM From:Carolyn Crone<cronecarolynPyahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 12:50 PM To: dredmondvbocPicloud.com Subject: Increasing Density and Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. J Good afternoon. My name is Carolyn Hedrick, an Ocean Park resident for over 20 years. I am writing to inform you that I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2 - PDH-1 to conditional B-4. It is important that development be in line with the community and quality of life we live here in Ocean Park. More specifically, there are a variety of problems and potential negative impacts resulting proposed development: - In accordance with the Shore Drive overlay, a parcel of 4 acres or more can have 36 units per acre. For the proposed development, that would total 108 units, as opposed to their 227 unit proposal (more than double the number of allowed units per acre). -An environmental study needs to be performed to determine the impact on PHP. - Overflow parking would spill onto Marlin Bay and the surrounding neighborhoods. -The increase in density, cars, and traffic could negatively impact the ability of emergency service response serving Ocean Park. -The development is not in line with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Carolyn Hedrick Madison Avenue Virginia Beach,VA 23455 From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN: Marlin Bay Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 10:03:59 AM Original Message From:Katebeba<katebeba@verizon.net> Sent:Tuesday,June 2,2020 9:03 AM To:Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject:Marlin Bay CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Kate Beba and I am an Ocean Park home owner.I strongly oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4.1 am not necessarily opposed to any development,but it needs to be in line with the community and quality of life here. Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: AN: Marlin Bay Date: Monday,June 1,2020 5:11:45 PM Original Message From:Graham Simpson<gsimp54@gmail.com> Sent:Monday,June 1,2020 4:41 PM To:Bob M.Dyer<BDyer@vbgov.com> Cc:Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com>;William R.Landfair<WLandfair@vbgov.com>; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com;Louis R.Jones<LRJones@vbgov.com>;James L.Wood<TLWood@vbgov.com> Subject:Marlin Bay CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my iPad.Hi,my name is Graham Simpson and I am an Ocean Park homeowner.I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4.I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here.I do see traffic as a major issue with this development.Shore Drive traffic is already bad enough. Thank you. From: Mark E,Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN: Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Monday,June 15,2020 6:38:30 AM From: Barbara Baker<barbara.baker@cox.net> Sent:Tuesday,June 9, 2020 11:14 PM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, My name is Barbara Baker and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development,but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life we have here now. Thanks you for taking my opinion into consideration, Barbara Baker 757-416-7700 Everything works out in the end, and if it hasn't worked out... it's not "the end" From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Monday,June 15,2020 6:33:34 AM From:alanna deal<alannadoczi@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 9, 2020 9:42 AM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning Sir, My name is Alanna and I currently live in Ocean Park off of Shore Drive. I'm writing to you to express my opposition to the rezoning of Marlin Bay Apartments. I actually work for a development company and I am very much pro smart development, but this increase in density will create a host of other terrible issues and concerns. - Parking.They are only providing roughly 1.5 spaces per 227 apartments(the unit mix ranges from 1-3 bedrooms in size).This is not adequate parking and will leave only the street parking that the Brock center and Pleasure House Point currently uses.They rely on that parking for their student programs.Also people from around Virginia Beach will no longer be able to utilize Pleasure House Point because there simply will be no parking to access it. - Beach.We are no longer getting our much needed beach replenishment. We barely have safe space to enjoy the beach as it currently exists.The steep dunes are already crumbling and a danger for our children and anyone who sits near the dune. -Traffic.This stretch of Shore Drive is already having to adjust to the hundreds of new apartments that are popping up on the other side of the Lesner Bridge. I personally was T boned at this very intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay,while pregnant and with a 5 year old child in the car. Thankfully we are all okay, but the intersection is already extremely unsafe and adding hundreds of additional cars will be an issue. -Pedestrians. Crossing this intersection is like playing a game of frogger.There have been multiple pedestrian injuries and fatalities.Without resolving the issue of this unsafe crosswalk, I can't imagine adding hundreds more people,who are all wanting to cross Shore Drive to get to the bay. - Beach Access. Our beach access recently received a poorly planned fence that narrows our access to the beach. There are five feet of unused flat beach that are no longer able to be used. People cannot safely pass through both directions. - Environmental impact.Virginia Beach is so fortunate to have the Brock Center and Pleasure house point.The impact on all the wild life and trails will take a toll. -Gateway.This is not in line with Virginia Beach's comprehensive plan.There is such a great opportunity to utilize this area with a development that will compliment the neighborhood and offer a positive impact on one of VB's key gateways. Thank you for your time and consideration. Warm Regards, Alanna Doczi Deal From: Marchelle L,Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: FW: Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:20:23 AM From: Ronald Marciszyn<ronmarciszyn( gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 8:55 PM Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive [ , CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Evening, My wife and I own a home in Ocean Park just across Shore Drive from the proposed development. I am writing to oppose the request to increase density and rezone for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. It is very important to note that I am not opposed to the development of the land in question, but the proposed project would have detrimental effects on the Ocean Park community and the quality of life. As it stands already, parking is at a premium in Ocean Park. In my portion of the neighborhood in particular, population density is already too high in that a vast majority of my neighbors spend many minutes out of their week circling the neighborhood finding parking along the roads. This is only exacerbated on the weekends with beach traffic leading to increased frustration. Although the proposed project intends to mitigate this with a parking garage, I have no doubt it will add vehicles to both sides of Shore Drive. Furthermore, call it what you will, but a parking garage does not fit in Ocean Park; it is an eyesore and does not fit in line with our way of life here. Ocean Park cannot handle traffic increases that would aggregate. One slowdown creates terrific delays and hinders emergency response, already shown this year by the boat ramp backups at Crab Creek from the reduction in trailer spots. The sheer number of apartments is concerning. With the recent foregoing of the dredging project for Ocean Park beaches, us current residents already find beach space at a premium. I have heard many comment that the beach is "massive" this year, but this is the perspective at low tide. The gradient of the current shoreline is so shallow the beach will fit only a small group against the dunes with barely enough room to traverse past at high tide. Adding 200+ families to this in addition to those who come from other local communities will crowd the beaches further, creating more issues and more frustration. Pleasure House Point will be impacted in some way shape or form. Despite mitigation to be proposed to protect the area, I see no way an increase in population in that area does not create issues for a piece of land that the city has worked so hard to make special. I fear not only for the frustrations the proposed project will bring, but the impact to a neighborhood I have come to love and made my biggest investment in. This project as proposed would not only affect property values in a negative way, but would also take away from the charm that is so important to us Ocean Park residents. Please consider these factors next month and understand this is not a plea to "leave our neighborhood alone" but instead to responsibly develop the land with a project that brings good to the community. Very Respectfully, Ron Marciszyn From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN: Marlin Bay Apartments Shore Drive Date: Monday,June 15,2020 6:45:41 AM From:Tina Davenport<tinadaven@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday,June 14, 2020 1:28 PM To: Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Shore Drive CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am Tina Davenport, a Baylake Pines resident for over 20 years. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Sincerely, Tina Davenport 4324 John Silver Rd. From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN: Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Monday,June 1,2020 7:17:58 AM From: Carly Swift<dr.cswift@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 8:06 PM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr.Shea, I would like to voice my concerns about the proposed apartment complex on the Browning's Marine and McLeskey property on the corner of Marlin Bay Dr and Shore Drive. I am a resident and business owner of Ocean Park and am in full support of development that enhances the community. I do not support the proposed re-zoning of this property nor do I see a 227 unit apartment complex enhancing the community.The property would include 1-3 bedroom units which would bring a density our community cannot support. We in Ocean Park hope you can help us prevent this and help create a development that would enhance Virginia Beach and the Shore Drive community which is a gateway to our city. Dr. Carly Swift Wave Of Life Chiropractic Center 4640 Shore Dr.Ste 108 Virginia Beach,VA 23455 757-321-7776 Wave of Life website LIKE US on FACEBOOK! "Dedicated to transforming Virginia Beach into a community of health& vitality." The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.Any review,retransmission,dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the original sender's prior written consent. This e-mail is for general informational purposes only and of itself creates no obligations on the part of the sender or sender's affiliates. From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW: Marlin Bay Appartments Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 5:30:02 PM From: Rick Kahler<richartkahler@me.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 12:29 PM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay Appartments rCAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr.Shea, My name is Rick Kahler. I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase the density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to any redevelopment of the parcel, but want to ensure that it is done in accordance with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project will negatively impact the community in the following ways: • Potential impact on Pleasure House Point Conservation requires study • Limited on street parking and spillage onto Marlin Bay Drive and the surrounding neighborhoods • The proposed number of units exceeds the Shore Drive overlay, Parcels of 4 acres of more are allowed 36 units per acre, so the property can only support 108 units. • The impact on emergency services in Ocean Park. Thank you— Rick Kahler 2168 Woodlawn Ave From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN: Marlin Bay Project with Photos Date: Friday,May 29,2020 5:17:24 PM Attachments: Villias at Ocean Park.ioq Three Ships Landina-2.ioq Three Ships Landina- 1.ioq From: NINA WHITE <nmdtw@cox.net> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 11:30 AM To: Mark E. Shea <MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay Project with Photos AUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Shea, I am a current resident of Baylake Pines and my home is located one block from the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments project. I am writing in opposition to the requested increase density and rezoning of Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4 in order to allow the building of 227 units. I understand the needs and rights of Landowners to develop their property,but this request is not compatible development within this area of Shore Drive. I would,however, support development similar to the projects directly across Shore Drive from the proposed Marlin Bay project. I have attached pictures of those projects for your review. Since there is a commercial business presently on this property, I would also be in favor of a nicely designed and carefully planned commercial project. With new and currently proposed residential developments on or near Shore Drive (i.e., The Pearl-https://lifeatpearl.com/; Westminster Canterbury -https://www.pilotonline.com/business/vp-nw-westminster-canterbury-01 1 1-202001 10- 66a1x6eku5dplbgf31ks3bi67y-story.html), traffic on Shore Drive will, in the very near future, greatly increase. The proposed Marlin Bay project(with 227 units)will significantly add to the numbers of vehicles traversing an already congested area. I have personally experienced, on many occasions,vehicles traveling East on Shore Drive stacked up well beyond Bayville Road waiting for the stoplight to change at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. Furthermore,the foot traffic this development will generate will only increase the chances of pedestrian/vehicle accidents on Shore Drive. People living in these new units will frequently walk across Shore Drive to access the Chesapeake Bay beaches. As a long-term resident of this neighborhood,I have personally witnessed the impact of pedestrian accidents on U.S. Route 60/Shore Drive in the past-lowering the speed limit from 45 MPH to 35 MPH as well as a sign count warning of the number of such incidences(which was eventually removed by the City). In addition to the fear of additional loss of life, I am also concerned that these types of development projects would place further pressure on City Officials to lower the speed limit further to 30 MPH or perhaps 25 MPH, creating additional gridlock on one of the few East/West Corridors in our city. I very much appreciate you giving consideration to my concerns and hope the outcome will include a major decrease in density of any potential development project on this site. Sincerely, Nina T. White 2208 Bayville Road Virginia Beach, VA 23455 (757)464-5167 • f a .tt '' itx''7 w te r;Iwn -.,, �1 "`� y 4 ,''' r. 'd '..c S. YkAf -* '74 t . , . ,,„, ,... , s: .., ,,„::,,, .. , , r--7-,” ..- • . , Air,.. .:.,, -...:-.,-;: . ..=. .;,.... ...,...,„,,f ....I . . ..,:.,.-; -... - ,..., ,-,_-, .;....,,ii.:.,4--,-;‘ . ., .. :„.-.::-.,,,,,,,,,.1.„., -$4.1131,,,,,1-'--#--4.-..--'.;7: :114ti,a*:::'..Z:......,:): 1 4.--": 4 ,-7_41 , dik 7.4_,, , z., ,„, olif tjell* ----------- .7-\\ --- --- : - -.pm.. ;•,-A-Ais-,,,, ,..fitrr,`, , / \ v ,iss: .., .4-• .ii.s. .-- At:. ,,,•,/..: ,,,,.,e - .41 t. 1 ''.-. ,•: ' , , , _, VOIS ,, it , - -.., r•';‘,,: ' ..tet,. - ----- . . .. "V",V44,4-••• •:- - •• •, , ,„,,, ifilk, lov.—_ - •- * * ,e„...L.,,,,,, k,„„.. I ---, •4,34:smsti— ?,,:, , _ - ..-- Rifir- __ _ ..v.,..4.-_, 1 IN ...... mmaem.-- ------------- f r' TJ�' yS f / •/5 M 4 I F t P Mc j -•.. -'...i*.•._!.7-,,,,•-•:•:"7-117 .4k X:';i''-*:- ,.4•=••, ,si 4 .. •.• Af--F':-",:41 ::'-lArgg-44p,•.?,41:1'...2,',\,,' .4':• 4:'-.:-'. .. ......,,_,,..,,,7 . ::,.,4.,..T''',:,',AIN ,.'.... .,.'-.4.4,g,:-.,a.' '4, ' r'''fl...,"' , -,.. .,. -.0 1.,;fir .it,,,. -...: f.. . .-.-",r rs t" b 4 f . ,�s 1,°",.J Q w }}s j,i- ,-*vo K? •a - T f ,.4 ��o.,_,3 `` � .t t .�v to 1.. .0 t � . ...zif' -- v a? _i e{ v' et t S!-4 [/ :� i r ‘ •:4t e�x +-¢,s_Y •"''rX$,r v ....•7 yam , �{.' �d h a.f. •C`/"s•�4, l per?• .. F'J' .1 v. t S . i. . c 3 _ .I. . ollt, 41', .:.may' • "•7 * % '4 yy� - it i . �' may, 'A '' "� ate- p•,-Fr s a <k4 4 or .-, C` ilk _ Ralf �„ SF f, 40 ate - l '� r y g Y i 1 1.. - t _-' From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: FW: Marlin Bay project Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:23:53 AM From: Barbara Reinhardt Vraa<breinhardtvraa13Pyahoo.corn> Sent:Wednesday,June 17, 2020 12:37 PM To: Planning Administration <PlanAdmnPvbgov.corn> Subject: Marlin Bay project CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, I have been a home owner at 3761 Jefferson Blvd since 2004. I have seen the density along Shore Drive in the Ocean Park neighborhood increase exponentially, allowing developers to jam in higher and higher density with no regard to the neighborhood's wishes. What was a quaint, pedestrian friendly beach neighborhood has been ruined but over development. There is no parking and the beaches are full. Think back to the very disturbing Floatopia event last year!! Now we see a proposed rezoning at Marlin Bay and Shore Drive to accommodate a 227 unit apartment complex called Marlin Bay. My husband and I strongly oppose the rezoning!! It's unbelievable the city would allow 500+ more people to be squeezed into that small a lot, especially close to the beautiful Brock Center on that side of Shore Drive! Even with a pool in the complex,the majority of the residents are going to head to the beach,you know MI. Not wanting to walk to the light at Marlon Bay, people will try to dash across Shore Drive at Powhatan and Albemarle. Against 4 lanes of fast traffic! This an accident waiting to happen! People are going to get killed, mark my words! Please do not allow the ever present desire for more tax dollars sway your common sense. The developers bought the property knowing the zoning was what it is. To request a rezoning to allow FOUR times the density is unconscionable! Please do not fall for this greed and allow it. Do not ruin our neighborhood by allowing the rezoning. I don't know how much more strongly we can put this...we do NOT want this development!! Please listen to the neighborhood, not developers who do not live in this area. Respectfully requested, Barbara Reinhardt Vraa 3761 Jefferson Blvd 612-214-0602 From: Plannino Administration To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN: Marlin Bay proposed apartment complex in Ocean Park Date: Wednesday,May 27,2020 4:04:27 PM Bill, Email of opposition received on 5/27/2020 in the Planning Administration inbox for the Marlin Bay Apartments project. Marchelle L.Coleman,City Planner II City of Virginia Beach Department of Planning&Community Development 2875 Sabre Street,Suite 500 Virginia Beach,VA 23452 (757)385-8557(Direct) (757)385-4621 (Office) mcoleman@vbgov.com Original Message From:Andrea Lindemann<awrl95@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday,May 27,2020 10:44 AM To:dredmondvbpc@icloud.com Subject:Marlin Bay proposed apartment complex in Ocean Park CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, I am a property owner in Ocean Park and active member of the Ocean Park Civic League.I would like to voice my concerns regarding the proposed apartment complex at Marlin Bay.I am strongly opposed to this project because of its size.Ocean Park is a unique place which is why we bought our home here despite having ties to other beach communities along the Eastern Seaboard.Ocean Park has the feel of a village with single family and duplex homes and strong community spirit. This large 227 unit complex simply does not fit in with the Ocean Park community. When the developer made its presentation to the OPCL board,the pictures looked attractive.But then as I drove down Shore Dr.I could see how overwhelming and huge this structure would be which is not evident in the carefully crafted drawings in the presentation.I am horrified that such a special place like Ocean Park could be another victim of rampant unchecked development. There are many concerns about this project related to infrastructure.I don't think the traffic study reflects the reality of 400+cars added to our small streets.We have two stoplights in Ocean Park.It is a small place.We have 1800 households.How does it benefit Ocean Park to squeeze in 400+more people?This large increase in population will surely strain current resources:fire,policing,schools,water,sewage.Ocean Park has been overlooked time and time again in realizing the Phase IV changes.We don't even have safe sidewalks.It has taken years to get the one stop light that will help residents from the south side cross safely to the beach. The City of Virginia Beach treats Ocean Park like a step child.The city uses our bay beach in advertising Virginia Beach as a destination but the city has denied Ocean Park the improvements of Phase IV that have been due for decades.Will the city again deal a blow to this special community? Will the city stand up for Ocean Park and say no to rezoning for this unwelcome project?I join with my neighbors to ask the city to be on the side of the community of Ocean Park and not allow this over large development. Sincerely, From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:Marlin Bay Rezoning-Ocean Park Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 5:28:25 PM Attachments: —WRD000.ioq From: Patsy Hassell <seabqueen@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 11:51 AM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay Rezoning-Ocean Park CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr.Shea: We are residents, business and homeowners of Ocean Park, Patricia Hassell &John Garris.We oppose the request to increase density and rezone for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay, ie, B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. We are not opposed to all development, but we want to ensure any development is in line with the community and quality of life in Ocean Park. Respectfully, Patricia Hassell John Garris Namaste ®, From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW: Marlin Bay Date: Monday,June 1,2020 5:11:24 PM From: Patricia Decker<george_patricia@verizon.net> Sent: Monday,June 1, 2020 3:53 PM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is George Decker and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay.from B2-PD-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of live here. Yours truly George Decker From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:Merlin Dr Apartments Rezoning Date: Monday,June 15,2020 6:47:01 AM From: Petra Snowden <petra.snowden@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday,June 14, 2020 6:15 PM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Merlin Dr Apartments Rezoning CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. r My name is Dr. Petra E Snowden and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. My husband Dieter Steinhoff and I strongly oppose the Rezoning of Marlin Bay Apartments from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4! Please do not ruin the ambiance of Shore Drive from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to Great Neck Road and the Brock Center access as well as the fragile Bay beaches with more apartments and subsequent population density. Instead be proactive and create an historical park as a continuation to the Lesner Bridge canoe sculpture. Champion that type of zoning please! Thank you! Sent from my iPhone From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FIN: Negative Impacts on Ocean Park-Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Thursday,June 4,2020 8:22:46 AM From: Deanna Martini<deanna_martini@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday,June 4, 2020 8:08 AM To: Mark E. Shea <MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Negative Impacts on Ocean Park- Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments (CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, My name is Deanna Martini and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B- 4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Respectfully, Deanna Martini From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: RE:NO rezoning for Marlin Bay apartments Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:33:58 AM From:Sharon Rowley<sharon.rowley.mlagmail.com> Sent: Monday,June 8, 2020 9:59 AM To: Bob M. Dyer<BDyerPvbgov.com>; Mark E.Shea<MEShea( vbgov.com>; dredmondvbDcPicloud.com; Louis R.Jones<LRJonesPvbgov.com>;James L. Wood <JLWoodPvbgov.com> Subject: NO rezoning for Marlin Bay apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Mayor, Planning Commission members and City Council Members: Please do not increase the number of units that can be built at Marlin Bay and Shore Drive. Construction along Shore Drive corridor has been extensive in recent years despite few (or no) improvements or expansions to infrastructure beyond emergency work. Current infrastructure (drainage especially) is simply NOT currently capable of supporting 227 apartments on a four-acre lot zoned for a maximum of 108.Traffic, parking,fire and rescue capacities are also serious concerns. Traffic in the area has already increased dramatically because of the Pleasure House Point natural area;during summer seasons,traffic and parking are already beyond capacity in the entire Ocean Park neighborhood. (This problem was made MUCH worse by taking away so much parking at the Lynnhaven Marina,that was poorly done.) 36 units per acre,fine. More than that will create far too many problems for the infrastructure in an area that is already under too much pressure. Thank you for keeping the zoning AS IT STANDS.To do otherwise would be sheer greed and exhibit a complete lack of concern for the well being and safety of the citizens of Virginia Beach. Sincerely, Dr.Sharon M. Rowley From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:No to Rezoning(Marlin Bay Apartments) Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 10:04:23 AM From: Ritch LaTulipe<ritch@engineer.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 2, 2020 9:07 AM To: Bob M. Dyer<BDyer@vbgov.com>; Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com>;William R. Landfair <WLandfair@vbgov.com>; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; irjones@vbgov.com;James L.Wood <JLWood@vbgov.com> Subject: No to Rezoning(Marlin Bay Apartments) CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To All, My name is Ritch LaTulipe and I am a long-term resident of the Ocean Park neighborhood. I have seen many changes to our area over the last 20 years. Some good, some not. I oppose the request to increase density(Once Again in our area) and rezoning for the Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive& Marlin Bay B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I strongly oppose any increase in density to existing rules. I have long envisioned retiring in my home which I have paid off several years ago. Recently with higher taxes and major traffic increases, I fear my dream is in danger. If you have ever driven Shore Drive at rush hour, you would understand how I feel. 4 acres can have 36 unites per acre which is a max of 108. The requested 227 is ridiculous and should under no circumstances be approved. I implore you to consider making this decision under the premise you live in this neighborhood. Regards, Ritch LaTulipe 3727 W. Stratford RD From: Marchelle L Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: RE:Ocean Park Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:35:06 AM From:Jennifer Concepcion <jconcepcion1agmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 2, 2020 10:04 AM To: dredmondvbpcaicloud.com Subject: Fwd: Ocean Park CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forwarded message From:Jennifer Concepcion<jconcepcion1agmail.corn> Date: Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:16 AM Subject: Fwd: Ocean Park To: <dredmondvbpcaicloud.com> Hi, my name is Jennifer Concepcion and I am an Ocean Park resident and homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you, Jennifer Concepcion From: Mark E.Shea To: William R,Landfair Subject: RN:Ocean Park rezoning Date: Thursday,June 25,2020 8:42:17 AM From:Steven Watters<watters_st@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 23, 2020 5:47 PM To: Mark E. Shea <MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject:Ocean Park rezoning CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Steven Watters and I am an Ocean Park homeowner I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional 64. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here." Sent from my iPhone From: !`lark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:Ocean Park-Marlin Bay Rezoning Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 5:28:53 PM From: pdavenport9<pdavenport9@cox.net> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:48 PM To: Patsy Hassell<seabqueen@aol.com>; Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: RE: Ocean Park-Marlin Bay Rezoning [CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you for your comments. I will ensure they are included with the agenda file. Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone Original message From: Patsy Hassell <seabqueenPaol.com> Date: 5/30/20 12:48(GMT-05:00) To: Pdavenport9Pcox.net Subject: Ocean Park-Marlin Bay Rezoning Dear Mr. Davenport: We are residents, business and homeowners of Ocean Park, Patricia Hassell &John Garris.We oppose the request to increase density and rezone for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay, ie, B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. We are not opposed to all development, but we want to ensure any development is in line with the community and quality of life in Ocean Park. Respectfully, Patricia Hassell John Garris Namaste I® From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN:On Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 5:27:57 PM From: Deborah Cohen <djcohen.pgh@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 9:26 AM To: Bob M. Dyer<BDyer@vbgov.com>; Mark E.Shea <MEShea@vbgov.com>; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; William R. Landfair<WLandfair@vbgov.com> Cc: ogi T<jjfisg@hotmail.com> Subject:On Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Deborah Cohen and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Deborah Cohen Sent from my iPhone From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW: Open Spaces Date: Monday,June 15,2020 8:48:25 AM Original Message From:Petra Snowden<petra.snowden@gmail.com> Sent:Monday,June 15,2020 7:38 AM To:Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject:Open Spaces CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please read the Va Pilot Editorial today!!!Do not Rezone Marlin Drive for apartments! Sent from my iPhone From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:Opposed to Rezoning Date: Monday,June 22,2020 9:04:17 AM From: pdavenport9<pdavenport9@cox.net> Sent: Friday,June 19, 2020 6:08 PM To: Christopher Schectman <misfit1981@gmail.com>; Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: RE: Opposed to Rezoning CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you for your comments. I will ensure they are included I n the project file for consideration. Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone Original message From: Christopher Schectman<misfit1981(@gmail.com> Date: 6/19/20 16:17 (GMT-05:00) To: Pdavenport9Pcox.net Subject:Opposed to Rezoning I am opposed the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thanks, Chris Schectman From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN:Opposition to Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,May 29,2020 5:16:54 PM another From: pdavenport9<pdavenport9@cox.net> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 1:18 PM To: Mark E.Shea <MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: FW: Opposition to Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone Original message From: LYNLEA RUDELL<IrudellPcox.net> Date: 5/29/20 13:01 (GMT-05:00) To: Pdavenport9Pcox.net Subject: Opposition to Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Hello Phil, My name is Lynlea Rudell and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Concerns include: - In accordance with the Shore Drive overlay a parcel of 4 acres or more can have 36 units max per acre,which would be 108 units not 227 - Environmental study needs to be performed to determine the impact on Pleasure House Point - Parking spilling onto Marlin Bay and surrounding neighborhoods - Emergency service response serving Ocean Park - Not in line with Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan Thank you, Lynlea Rudell From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: FW:Opposition to the Marlin Bay Proposal Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:38:27 AM From:Jennifer Snyder<jlbarber2Pgmail.corn> Sent:Thursday,July 9, 2020 8:26 PM Subject:Opposition to the Marlin Bay Proposal CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, My name is Jenny Snyder and I am a resident of Ocean Park. I am writing to oppose the proposed development along Shore Dr and Marlin Bay in the 23455 area. I am very concerned about the proposed density of this development as it is not in agreement with the existing land use in our neighborhood. I feel a development of this size would significantly change the atmosphere of our neighborhood without adding value. My primary concern is placing such a high-density apartment building beside a nature preserve. Virginia Beach worked very hard to preserve Pleasure House Park. It is my family's favorite place in the city. I enjoy walking or running through the trails multiple days a week. I take visitors there to appreciate the beauty of our city. Pleasure House Park is a wonderful recreational space that brings value to Virginia Beach. Increasing traffic of both vehicles and humans will have a negative impact on that space.Virginia Beach is in the process of establishing a magnet program with the Brock Environmental Center. It seems contradictory that the city would want to invest in environmental programs for students while simultaneously agreeing to outrageous land use proposals just next door. Secondly, I know the city is working to mitigate flooding.Along Shore Drive we've seen significant growth in the number of high rise buildings.The Pearl,The Overture, and others have already contributed to the increasing pavement and congestion along the Shore Drive corridor. Allowing for more greenspace fits in with the strategic plan to use natural ways to mitigate storm water and flooding issues. I understand the development is inevitable but I urge you to stick with the existing zoning of the space. Encourage the developer to propose solutions that fit with the neighborhood. It would be great to see a mixed-use space that brings small businesses (restaurants, shops, etc) alongside fewer units. Or a mix of single family and duplex style units as you see throughout the neighborhood. Thank you so much for your time. Regards, Jennifer Snyder,MPH,CHES Jennifer Snyder,MPH From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:Proposed Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 5:27:35 PM From: Ken Yagelski <ken@yagelski.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 8:37 PM To: Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Proposed Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, I am a resident of the beautiful Ocean Park neighborhood. This short message is simply to let you know that I oppose the pending request to increase density and rezone the area at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4 for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments. I am not opposed to development for Virginia Beach and the Shore Drive area, but I want to make certain that it improves the community and quality of life for everyone that is affected.That is not the case with this proposal. Thank you, Ken Yagelski Ken Yagelski ken( vaeelski.com 703.656 6031 @yagelski on most networks From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:Proposed Shore Drive Apartments Date: Monday,June 15,2020 5:30:02 PM From: esvaughn2@cox.net<esvaughn2@cox.net> Sent: Monday,June 15, 2020 3:03 PM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Proposed Shore Drive Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon, My name is Sid Vaughn and I am an Ocean Park homeowner and resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2- PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan, the community, and the quality of life. Sincerely, Dr. E. Sidney Vaughn III 2081 Tazewell Road 650-2944 From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN: Reszoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Monday,June 15, 2020 5:30:49 PM Original Message From:MARK GORSUCH<gorsuch8564@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday,June 15,2020 3:23 PM To:Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject:Reszoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr.Shea, My name is Mark Gorsuch and I am a Ocean Park home owner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to development but doubling the units per acre is not a request to enhance or improve our beach front community. On the contrary,the Ocean Park quality of life that we enjoy will be in jeopardy by impacting the beaches,the spilling over of neighborhood parking,and Shore Drive traffic concerns. The Shore Drive plan was never intended to become a high density congested neighborhood. It was my understanding that the Town Center area was designated for high density muli-family housing. I ask you to help persevere the ocean front communities on Shore Drive. Please do not approve increased densities for the area. The current zoning allowances will be difficult enough. Shore Drive is a gem in Virginia Beach that is worth saving. With warm regards, Mark Gorsuch 2204B Roanoke Ave Virginia Beach,VA From: Mark E.Shea To: William R,Landfair Subject: FW: Rezone marlin bay apartments Date: Thursday,June 4,2020 1:23:26 PM From: Leah Brady<Imb2987@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:58 PM To: Mark E. Shea <MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Rezone marlin bay apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Leah Brady and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Sent from my iPhone From: Mark E.Shea To: William R,Landfair Subject: FW: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments-Ocean Park Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 5:29:09 PM From:Trent Busch <buschtd@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 10:51 AM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com>;William R. Landfair<WLandfair@vbgov.com>; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com Cc:Jeanne Busch<buschjm@gmail.com> Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments-Ocean Park CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr.Shea, Mr. Landfair and Mr. Redmond, We have lived in Ocean Park for over 20 years as a homeowner. Much of the community has changed with the increased density of multifamily homes from single family homes. This has created challenges for us with reduced parking, increased stop light queuing and increased traffic on Shore Dr during the commuting hours and weekends. Parking has become a bottleneck for our community during the summer often restricting emergency vehicle access. While I am not opposed to development, I am strongly opposed to changing current zoning laws to accommodate the Marlin Bay Apartments. This a significant increase (doubling the current density) that is not aligned with quality of life Ocean Park offers it property owners. If Marlin Bay Apartment complies with current zoning laws—limiting it to 108 units and the proper traffic, environment impact, emergency response and parking evaluations show minimal impact I could be supportive of the project of creating luxury apartments. At this time with Marlin Bay Apartments is requesting 227 units which doubles the 108 allowed. We strongly recommend the planning committee not approve this as is. Thank you for your leadership. We are proud residents of Virginia Beach and have throughly enjoyed raising our family here. Thank you. Trent and Dr.Jeanne Busch 2337 Madison Ave Virginia Beach,VA 23455 757-620-1858 From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 10:05:08 AM From: Ray Grover<ray.grover@me.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 2, 2020 9:25 AM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr.Shae, My name is Ray Grover and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase the density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive& Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. The property can support 108 units not 227, and the proposed plan is not in line with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully Ray Grover 3734 Chesterfield Ave Virginia Beach,VA 23455 From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 5:51:44 PM Original Message From:MaryLee<mmagnusl@cox.net> Sent:Tuesday,June 2,2020 12:36 PM To:Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject:Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr.Shea, My name is MaryLee Magnus,and I have been a resident of Ocean Park in Virginia Beach for 28 years. I am writing to oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for the Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I must also say I am extremely disappointed in the city allowing apartments to be built on this land at all.The Ocean Park community is not the appropriate site for apartments. We are a community of homes and condos,and should remain as such. The city has not done a good job standing up for its citizens against the developers in the past.I am hoping that will stop now! I hope you will help ensure this community keeps its current identity and quality of life. Thank You MaryLee Magnus Sent from my iPad From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Wednesday,June 3,2020 8:36:25 AM From: leannekay84@yahoo.com <leannekay84@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday,June 3, 2020 7:54 AM Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi,my name is Leanne Kay and I am an Ocean Park homeowner/resident.I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4.I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here.This development would adversely affect the good that is being done with Pleasure House Park. I really feel the addition of this many people and added car traffic to this area will affect the environment that is thriving in PHP. Not to mention this is not in line with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. In accordance with the Shore Drive overlay a parcel of 4 acres or more can have 36 units per acre which for this lot would amount to 108 not the proposed 227.There is currently a parking issue in this area, especially during the summer and the addition of this apartment complex would only increase parking along Marlin Bay and surrounding streets.My husband and I will attend all public meetings/forums to oppose this particular development. Thank you, Leanne Kay From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: FW: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:45:05 AM From: Patrick Bonar<pcbonarPgmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 2, 2020 9:30 PM Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, My name is Patrick Bonar. and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive& Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. If this rezoning is approved, I will tell you that you can expect me and my family who also live off of Shore Drive,very close by,to attend any and all public meetings related to this rezoning and development, and we will voice our opposition loudly. I would be happy to discuss this issue further with you in person if you are actually open to the perspective of a homeowner who lives near the proposed site. My address is 3818 Marlin Bay Court, I access Shore Drive on the same intersection that the proposed development would be built upon. I look forward to an open and honest discussion on this issue. I want to reiterate that I am not opposed to all possible development on this site, or anywhere for that matter. I want my neighborhood to be upscale,classy and respectable. I would only like to voice my opinion and concern about this proposition because of the large increase in density(and therefore traffic). Our speed limit has already been lowered, I do not want an additional increase in commute time due to increased local traffic,summer tourist traffic already adds 5-10 minutes to my commute, I cannot imagine an additional 227 units right at the entrance to my neighborhood.Thank you for listening,and I hope you have a nice day. Patrick Bonar, RN, CEN pcbonarPgmail.com (c) 757-647-3880 From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: FW: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:46:14 AM From:Jason Weaver<jasonmweaverCJvahoo.com> Sent: Monday,June 1,2020 1:58 PM To: dredrnondvbpcPicloud.com Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments [CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Jason Weaver and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: Fw:Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:46:50 AM From:Caroline Spriggs<carolinespriggs( hotmail.corn> Sent:Wednesday,June 3, 2020 8:37 PM To: Bob M. Dyer<BDyerPvbgov.com>; Mark E.Shea<MESheaPvbgov.corrm>; Louis R.Jones <LRJonesPvbgov.corn>;SlredmondvbpC icloud.com Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Officials, My name is Caroline Spriggs and I have been a resident of Ocean Park for over 20 years specifically in the Marlin Bay division. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2- PDH - 1 to condition B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here in Ocean Park. Please also consider the traffic on Shore Drive is already extremely bad in addition to the death rate. We really don't want to make this area any more congested then it already is, so it's my hope you will not build these apartments. Thank you for your time. Caroline Spriggs 3753 Pendleton Ave. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW:Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Monday,June 15,2020 6:37:42 AM Attachments: jmage001 jog jmage002.ong From: Matt Conrad <mconrad@rand.com> Sent:Wednesday,June 10, 2020 4:10 PM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Matt Conrad and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you, Matt Conrad I Account Executive IMAGINiT Technologies 5701 Cleveland St. Suite 320 Virginia Beach,VA 23462 C: 757-284-9192 Imaginit.Com Description: rand-mini Capture Existing Conditions in half the time! Learn more about the NEW LEICA RTC360 SCANNER&WORKFLOW Leica RTC360 151 httos://www.imaginit.com/software/imaginit-utilities-other-prod ucts/leica-RTC360 From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: i-1 I: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive Date: Monday,June 1,2020 11:04:36 AM From: Lynn & Markus Tavenner<tavevb@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,June 1, 2020 8:20 AM To: Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Lynn Tavenner and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive & Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. From: Mark E,Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 5:29:50 PM Original Message From:Chris Goehausen<coehausen@mac.com> Sent:Sunday,May 31,2020 11:58 AM To:Bob M.Dyer<BDyer@vbgov.com>;Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com>;William R.Landfair <WLandfair@vbgov.com>;dredmondvbpc@icloud.com;Louis R.Jones<LRJones@vbgov.com>;James L.Wood <JLWood@vbgov.com> Subject:Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, My name is Chris Goehausen and I am an Ocean Park homeowner.I strongly oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development,but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you, Chris,Rebecca,Chase and Jack Goehausen From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: Fw: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apts Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:49:19 AM From: Ken Zenzel <kenzenzelcgmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 23, 2020 5:23 PM To: Ken Zenzel <kenzenzel(agmail.com> Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apts [CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Gentlemen, Please add my name to the list of residents concerned about the consequences of increasing density of population in Ocean Park and on Shore Drive. On every warm day, on my street to the beach access cul-de-sac,traffic is already maxed. Before existing density restrictions are waived or stretched, main roads, parking and beach access deserve serious thought/planning and public review.. Now,we can look back and say Aeries and Rookery Ways should have been built wider. But, about all we can do is put up signs telling drivers to fold-in side view mirrors; and; keep windows rolled-up because there is not enough room on streets to honor 6' social spacing as cars pass. Dedication of Pleasure House Point as a reserve should not be accepted as an excuse for increasing density across Marlin Bay Dr. Furthermore, in a CAT 3 storm. the whole area will be under water. Even in CAT 1, roads from the southeast end of Marlin Bay flood. All issues get more complicated with more people, as you all know. Please notify me of relevant public meetings on this subject. Ken Zenzel 2364 Rookery Way Virginia Beach, VA 23455 363.2167 M652.9610 From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN:Rezoning for Marlon bay apartments Date: Monday,June 15,2020 6:37:59 AM From: Mike Skowronski <mjskowronski@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday,June 10, 2020 9:00 AM To: Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Re: Rezoning for Marlon bay apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Mr. Shea, Can you provide dates/times/information/websites etc etc for any more information? Mike Skowronski On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:34 PM Mark E. Shea <MEShea( vbgov.com>wrote: Thank you for your comments. I am copying the planner who will be reviewing this application for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. I am the staff planner for the Bayfront Advisory Commission (BAC) and I am currently reviewing meeting options to be compliant with City policy related to COVID-19 social distancing. The next BAC meeting is normally 6-18 in a small room at Bayside Recreation Center. I will provide directly notification to you and the Ocean Park Civic League regarding arrangements for the next BAC meeting. The earliest date for Marlin Bay Apartments to be considered by the Planning Commission would by July. From: Mike Skowronski<mjskowronskiPgmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31,2020 4:41 PM To: Mark E.Shea<MESheaPvbgov.corn>; Bob M. Dyer<BDyerPvbgov.corn>; ciredmondvbpcPicloud.com;James L.Wood <JLWoodPvbgov.corn>; Louis R.Jones <LRJonesPvbgov.com>;William R. Landfair<WLandfairPvbgov.com> Subject: Rezoning for Marlon bay apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, My name is Mike Skowronski, and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2- PDH -1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. The Shore Drive Overlay max of 36 Units per Acre shall never be exceeded. The impact to PHP shall be studied and published. Parking shall be planned as to not impact Marlin Bay. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. Sincerely, Mike Skowronski From: flarcheile L.anemia!' To: hlarchelie L Coleman Subject: FW: Rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments(Shore Drive and Marling Bay) Date: Friday,June 4,2021 10:50:22 AM From: Raymond Janezeck<dmjanezeckPverizon.net> Sent: Monday,June 1, 2020 11:58 AM To: dredmondvbpcPicloud.com Subject: Rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments(Shore Drive and Marling Bay) CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Raymond and I are homeowners in Ocean Park. We oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive& Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. We are not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Sincerely, Raymond & Mary Walkup-Janezeck 2324 Raleigh Ave. From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: RN: Rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 10:05:46 AM Original Message From:Andrea Ware<andrea.ware103@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 2,2020 9:39 AM To:Bob M.Dyer<BDyer@vbgov.com> Cc:Mark E.Shea<MEShea®vbgov.com> Subject:Rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi,my name is Andrea Ware and I'm an Ocean Park homeowner.I oppose the request to increas density and rezoning for Marlin Bay apartments on shore Drive and Marlin Bay. This will impact the quality of life here and I personally believe the safety of homeowners and renters due to increased traffic in the small area.I have been living in Aeries for 5 years and love the area but would like to express how much car traffic and pedestrian traffic we already have in this area. Thank you, Andrea Ware 2207 Wood Ibis Way Virginia Beach,VA 23455 (757)288-2427 Sent from my iPhone From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FW: Rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments Shore Drive/Ocean Park Area Date: Monday,June 15,2020 6:31:50 AM From: KAROLE L BURRIS<KLKENT@sentara.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 9, 2020 7:06 AM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: RE: Rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments Shore Drive/Ocean Park Area AUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you. From: Mark E. Shea<MEShea(@vbgov.com> Sent: Monday,June 8, 2020 5:50 PM To: KAROLE L BURRIS<KLKENTPsentara.com> Subject: FW: Rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments Shore Drive/Ocean Park Area Notice: This email originated outside the Sentara Healthcare network. Beware of links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to spam_team@sentara.com. Update: The item has been placed on the Bayfront Advisory Commission agenda for July 16, 2020. Thank you for your comments. The agenda with location/time will be posted at https://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/planning/boards-commissions- committees/Pages/Bayfront-Advisory-Commission.aspx approximately one week prior to the meeting. From: Mark E. Shea Sent:Sunday,June 7, 2020 9:50 AM To: KAROLE L BURRIS<KLKENTPsentara.com> Subject: RE: Rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments Shore Drive/Ocean Park Area Thank you for your comments. I am the staff planner for the Bayfront Advisory Commission (BAC) and I am currently reviewing meeting options to be compliant with City policy related to COVID-19 social distancing. The next BAC meeting is normally 6-18 in a small room at Bayside Recreation Center. I will provide directly notification to you and the Ocean Park Civic League regarding arrangements for the next BAC meeting. The earliest date for Marlin Bay Apartments to be considered by the Planning Commission would by July. Thank you and please let me know if you have any other questions. From: KAROLE L BURRIS<KLKENTftsentara.com> Sent: Friday,June 5, 2020 4:22 PM To: Mark E.Shea<MESheaPvbgov.com>; William R. Landfair<WLandfairPvbgov.corri>; dredmondvbpc( icloud.corn Subject: RE: Rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments Shore Drive/Ocean Park Area CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon Planning Commission Bayside District 4, I am an home owner in the Ocean Park neighborhood. I wanted to write to you in opposition of the potential rezoning and build of apartment complex in the Ocean Park area. I oppose the developer's request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive/Marlin Bay from B2-PDH1 to conditional B-4.The proposed number of apartment units is a high number and recently there have already been new developments of condos just past that location as well as new homes on Chesterfield and other areas within Ocean Park that have increased the per capita of the neighborhood. The more recent developments are more aligned to the community without negatively impacting the area unlike the proposed apartment complex. The close proximity of Pleasure House Point and the Brock Center environmental area could be negatively impacted by the population increase and an Environmental Study should be performed to ensure this natural area is preserved and protected. The increase of traffic and car parking would be a negative impact as well as there are current struggles already within this area as many people from other neighborhoods park in the Ocean Park residential areas to go to the beach, many park to utilize the paths on the preserve, and many park for boating and kayaking.The Lynnhaven boat ramp at the corner of the Lesner bride by Piedmont Circle draws a high volume of traffic and cars parked throughout the neighborhood. The safety of the citizens living in this area could be impacted as the emergency response times could be decreased as a strain is placed on the Emergency Services in the area with a higher number of people. Another safety consideration for the citizens are the already high volume of tragic injuries and deaths related from Shore Drive traffic accidents involving pedestrians and runners in the neighborhood. Overall,the request is not in line with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life in Ocean Park. Developments more in line with other recent developments would be better suited to the community and quality of life established in Ocean Park. Thank you for your time and allowing me to note my opposition to this matter. Sincerely, Karole Burris Ocean Park Homeowner Chesterfield Ave 757-508-4100 Work Email klkentPsentara.com Disclaimer: This electronic message and its contents and attachments contain information from Sentara Healthcare and is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.The information is intended to be for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copy,distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message and all copies. Disclaimer: This electronic message and its contents and attachments contain information from Sentara Healthcare and is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.The information is intended to be for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message and all copies. From: Mark E,Shea To: William R,Landfair Subject: RN: Rezoning Marlin Bay Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 5:39:08 PM From:cliff/kathy<cliffmoore1229@verizon.net> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 PM To: Bob M. Dyer<BDyer@vbgov.com>; Mark E.Shea <MEShea@vbgov.com>;William R. Landfair <WLandfair@vbgov.com>; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; Louis R.Jones<LRJones@vbgov.com>; James L. Wood<JLWood@vbgov.com> Subject: Rezoning Marlin Bay CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, My name is Kathy Moore and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life we currently have as a resident of Ocean Park. Sincerely, Kathy From: Mark E.Shea To: William R.Landfair Subject: FIN:Rezoning Shore Dr.and Marlin Bay Date: Thursday,June 18,2020 3:57:16 PM From: Frank Schiller<schiller.fg@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday,June 18, 2020 3:52 PM To: Mark E. Shea <MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Rezoning Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Frank Schiller and I am an Ocean Park resident and homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Best, Frank Schiller From: stacev759C@live.corn To: William R.Landfair Subject: Fwd:Oppose Shore Drive-Marlin Bay Apartment Complex Date: Tuesday,June 9,2020 1:26:39 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device Original message From:5tacey759@live.com Date:Tue,Jun 9,2020 1:22 PM To:may ors office@vbgov.com; Cc: Subject:Oppose Shore Drive-Marlin Bay Apartment Complex Hi,my name is Stacey Kellam and I am a homeowner in Aeries On the Bay,in the Shore Drive Ocean Park district. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments at Shore Drive&Marlin Bay,from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4.I am not opposed to any development,but want to ensure it is in line with our community and quality of life here. Thank you. Stacey Kellam Stacey759@live.com (757)363-9143 Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device From: Gavle McHugh To: William R.Landfair Subject: Fwd:Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Wednesday,June 10,2020 5:36:57 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Gayle McHugh<utgayle72@yahoo.com> Date: June 10, 2020 at 5:35:15 PM EDT To: bdyer@vbgov.com Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments To Whom It May Concern, I am an Ocean Park homeowner since 2003. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. The community density is already too high, new construction leads to flooding of existing structures, Shore Drive is a continual danger for traffic and pedestrians, and our quality of life is constantly challenged by visitors and renters that have no real connection to the neighborhood. With Sincere Interest, Dr. Gayle McHugh 757-816-7140 Sent from my iPhone From: Jvnn knight To: J3ob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(ucloud.coni;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: I oppose Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive Date: Monday,June 15,2020 11:55:34 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi,my name is Lynn Knight and I am an Ocean Park homeowner.I oppose the request to increase the density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4.I am not posed to any development but want to ensure that it is in line with the community and quality of life here Sent from my iPad From: Donna Caruso To: dredmondvboc(&icloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood;William R.Landfair;Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea; P�sal Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 7:56:37 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >Good Morning. >I am a long term resident of the Ocean park neighborhood and I am writing to express my concern over the proposed change in zoning for the area of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay.The current zoning allows for significant and appropriate development of this parcel of land.The current zoning was developed with due consideration of the differing needs of the community and future development.The requested change would far exceed appropriate planned density of residences in our area. >Some of the concerns are environmental impact on a sensitive area that includes the nearby wetlands park,the impact on the community,parking concerns,traffic density on Shore drive as well as the quality of life in a neighborhood that was developed within the current zoning. >Please refuse to make the change to this area's zoning.The currently zoned development density is the maximum that should be permitted.Any increase in density will adversely affect the area and cause harm to the local residents that live within the current planning commission zoning. >Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing of your plans for this change request. >Donna Caruso >3884 Jefferson Blvd >Virginia Beach,VA 23455 From: John Van Huvck To: bdyer vbbaov.com;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;slredmondvboc(&idoud.com;Louis R.Jones Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Saturday,June 6,2020 10:50:27 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a 30+year resident of Ocean Park and am alarmed that there is yet another scheme that will add to the traffic and parking density along Shore Drive DESPITE EXISTING ZONING AND PUBLISHED PLANS. As well as stretch emergency and other city resources. Thank goodness there is a median along Shore Drive or no one would ever get across at an intersection with no traffic light as it is, much less if this development takes place. Remember the "Save Shore Drive" campaign of a few years ago. Please reconsider this ill- conceived proposal and let unfortunately inevitable at least follow existing plans and common sense. John Van Huyck 3806 Surry Road Virginia Beach,VA 23455 From: Chris&Steoh Walker To: Dob M.Dyer;dark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboceicloud.coni;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,June 12,2020 4:18:09 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Dyer,VB Planning Commission District 4, and VB City Council: Please listen to and truly hear the current residents' concerns of the development of a high density residential apartment complex in the already crowded Ocean Park neighborhood. My husband and I rented in this neighborhood for over several years before we purchased our home last year. In the relatively short time we've lived here we have witnessed the rapid conversion to duplex style homes on single lots, development of the little remaining land, and the addition of several townhomes. I get it. It's a great neighborhood and obviously everyone knows it. However, we have current issues related to past development projects that I fear may be exacerbated by the addition of a large apartment complex. FLOODING: The roadway flooding issues along Shore Drive are well known. The current drainage system is overwhelmed regularly with moderate rain events and any amount of storm surge. Our yard, as well as the yards of 4 immediate neighbors, floods due to the area's inadequate drainage system. My long time neighbors tell me this only became a problem after the development of Three Ships Landing. The potential impacts were not communicated to the current residents prior to development. What steps are being taken to mitigate the significant increase of impervious surfaces that will dramatically increase run off into our already inadequate storm water system? TRAFFIC: Although the completion of the Lesner Bridge project has improved traffic flow on Shore Drive by the elimination of constantly blocked travel lanes, we still frequently experience significant backups due to volume. Adding potentially up to 500 cars to the regular flow will increase the congestion, increase the chance of vehicle collisions and pedestrian/bike incidents, increase the frequency of lane closures, and increase the wear and tear of the roadway. ROAD SURFACE QUALITY: Our neighborhood streets are in poor shape. Pot holes. Sink holes. Root heave. Resurfacing a few of the streets last year temporarily improved the navigation to Shore Drive for some residents,but much works is left undone. Increased neighborhood vehicle traffic will increase the frequency and cost of needed repairs, which already do not come timely. PARKING: The proposed parking garage may house the apartment residents' vehicles,but where do their guests park? Everyone who lives near the beach has friends who want to go to the beach. And few people carry a day's worth of family beach gear on foot. They will drive over to at least unload, if not to park. Our neighborhood already deals with blocked driveways, knocked over mailboxes, hit and run incidents, and torn up lawns from the current level of beach activity.Not to mention the issues of boat trailer traffic increased by the lack of parking available at the boat launch. (That's another issue.) BEACH CONGESTION(more importantly, it's environmental impact): The beach is and should be open to everyone. However, maybe ongoing issues will increase with significantly more folks using the beach on a regular basis. Trash. People and dogs climbing on the dunes. Dog/dog and dog/person incidents. Dog waste. Human waste. Lack of rest room facilities leads to people squating in home owner's yards. Garbage. Increased crowding of beaches will lead to more conflicts among people which could escalate into now fights. Since the beach replenishment project could not be funded this year we have limited beach to spread out on. This is especially a concern now with the Covidl 9 situation. Similar issues will impact Pleasure House Point Natural Area, a critical refuge for wildlife and migrating birds. Increased pollution will directly affect this only recently protected area. There are several more concerns that could be expanded upon and I hope they all are thoroughly explored. I direct your attention to the above points and ask you to reflect on the increased resources that will be required to adequately address them. This is not just a"not in my back yard" issue. There are serious, long term impacts to the approval of this project. Please consider what problems maybe created or exacerbated or accelerated for the next generation. Thank you for your time and hopefully thoughtful deliberation on this development project. Stephanie Walker Ocean Park Home Owner From: Jim Swallow To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;1redmondvboc(@icloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Opposition Date: Thursday,June 4,2020 3:34:43 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am an Ocean Park home owner and oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for the Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B- 4. I believe this project will have adverse environmental effects to Pleasure House Point and traffic on Shore Drive. Thank you, Jim Swallow 2075 Tazewell Rd Virginia Beach,VA 23455 From: Rick Kahler To: William R.Landfair Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 12:33:11 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Landfair- My name is Rick Kahler. I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase the density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to any redevelopment of the parcel, but want to ensure that it is done in accordance with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project will negatively impact the community in the following ways: • Potential impact on Pleasure House Point Conservation requires study • Limited on street parking and spillage onto Marlin Bay Drive and the surrounding neighborhoods • The proposed number of units exceeds the Shore Drive overlay, Parcels of 4 acres of more are allowed 36 units per acre,so the property can only support 108 units. • The impact on emergency services in Ocean Park. Thank you— Rick Kahler 2168 Woodlawn Ave From: Pat Mirani To: William R.Landfair Subject: Marlin Bay Aprartments Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 4:11:14 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, my name is Patricia Mirani and I am an Ocean Park,Virginia Beach homeowner. I have recently become aware of a request to rezone the property on the corner of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4,for the purpose of adding a 227-unit apartment complex. I am strongly opposed to granting this request due to its impact on an already densely populated area—schools, infrastructure and traffic,for example. I also feel it would affect my property value in a negative way. When I first became of aware of this possibility, my mind immediately went back some years to when the property that is now Pleasure House Point,was in danger of being developed into a mixed used housing development. Thankfully,that did not happen and our Community now has a beautiful park,fishing area and environmental center to enjoy. This preserve would be right across the street from the proposed development—consider the parking overflow there would be onto Marlin Bay Dr., preventing people from parking to enjoy the preserve. While I am not opposed to development of this property, I am opposed to another residential addition here. I feel Ocean Park and the surrounded area is over-developed already. Surely there are other options more in line with the quality of life our Community deserves. Thank you. Sincerely, Patricia Mirani From: Jackie Zimmerman To: Bob M.Dyer Cc: William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(@icloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood;Mark E.Shea Subject: Marlin Bay complex Date: Thursday,June 25,2020 8:43:59 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Jacqueline Zimmerman and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Best regards, Jackie Sent from my iPhone From: Mary Taylor To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCa�icloud.com;Louis R.Jones;ilwoodvb,com Subject: Marlin Bay development Date: Wednesday,June 24,2020 7:06:11 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi,my name is Mary Taylor and I am an Ocean Park homeowner and resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Developers and builders should live under the same restrictions and regulations the rest of us do. Citizens have the impression that,with enough money,the city planners,the Planning Board, and the City Council will do just about anything, degrading trust in the honesty and integrity of our city leaders. Shore Drive is becoming very congested. The density is negatively affecting our quality of life. PLEASE DENY the request to increase density at the Marlin Bay Apartments. Mary Taylor 3808 Jefferson Blvd. From: Susu I s Kulouy To: yfewn R I aadtta Subject Marlin Bay Re-Zoning in Ocean Park Date: Thursday,June 11,2020 4:32:19 PM 'CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Is safe. Hello Mr.Landfair, I am a homeowner in Ocean Park and want to voice serious concern over a developer's request to rezone our area to build a 227-unit apartment complex at the corner of Shore Drive&Marlin Bay. My main concerns are that this is not in line with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan,increasing population density in an already populated area will overwhelm our infrastructure,traffic,and emergency response units,not to mention parking along the Shore drive corridor.I'd also like to ensure an environmental impact study is planned as this is very close to Pleasure House Point.My understanding is that this rezoning request is well above the units per acre tolerance for our area of 108,not 227 apartment units.While I'm not opposed to development in my area,I do want to be sure we do it responsibly and within the laws that maintain the quality of life for people and our environment. Thank you, Susu Kulow 858-232-8647 From: aslinkv13(aamail,com To: William R,Landfair Subject: MarlinBay Apartment Complex Date: Wednesday,May 27,2020 10:37:06 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Adrienne Schlenkermann and I am a Baylake Pines homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. I have lived in the community since 1983 and saw the destruction of the YMCA camp property and then the building of R G Moore's housing and townhouses. It's impact is felt everyday by traffic increases and land lost. We are so fortunate to live in this area but shameless disregard for preservation of our natural beauties has to stop. Please restrict the apartment application to homes or townhouses as are they presently. Respectfully, Adrienne Schlenkermann Sent from my iPhone From: Ellen Kohan To: William R.Landfair Subject: Martin bay apartments Date: Wednesday,June 17,2020 12:56:04 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Ellen Asplund Kohan and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Best Ellen Asplund Kohan From: Sam Morris To: Bob M.Dyer; Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocicloud.com; Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Negative Impact to Ocean Park Date: Wednesday,June 3,2020 10:49:26 AM !CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi,my name is Sam and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2- PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you for you time, Sam Morris From: RPYin_WPcir To: Mark E.Shea;Bob M.Dyer;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCa icloud.com•Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Negative Impacts of Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Sunday,June 14,2020 8:45:49 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Dyer, Mr. Shea, Mr. Landfair, Mr. Redmond, Mr.Jones and Mr.Wood. My name is Devin West. I am a homeowner in Ocean Park. My Address is 3708 E Stratford Rd. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B4. I do not oppose all development in the area, but it needs to be in the best interest of the community and quality of life in ocean park. • According to the Shore Dr overlay, a parcel of land of 4 acres or more can have 36 units per acre,which is 108, not 227. • A full environmental study needs to be performed,to determine the impact on the Pleasure House Point Natural Area.The assertion that the project will have less environmental impact and lower volume of runoff than the existing structures is not logical. Further investigation is needed... • Parking is already a problem in the area and it is likely that street parking will spill onto marlin bay and the surrounding neighborhoods, including mine. • The impact to emergency response, including EMS and Fire.The area is already dense and has experienced multiple fires in recent history.As an EMS volunteer this really worries me. I want make sure any development is fully thought out in regards to public safety. • I do not believe this development is in line with the Virginia Beach comprehensive plan. Thank you for your time and consideration, I know the city and its officials are under considerable stress right now and as a resident, I appreciate the job that you are all doing. If you have any questions,feel free to reach out to me via email or phone 757-718-1625 Best Regards, Devin West 757-718-1625 From: Deanna Martini To: William R.Landfair Subject: Negative Impacts on Ocean Park-Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Thursday,June 4,2020 8:08:51 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, My name is Deanna Martini and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B- 4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Respectfully, Deanna Martini From: Kramer Mayberry To: Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbpcCulidoud.com Subject: Negative Impacts to Ocean Park Date: Tuesday,June 9,2020 12:48:50 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning My name is Kramer Mayberry and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B-2 PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you, Kramer Mayberry (757) 343-7653 From: Matt Farrell To: Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair dredmondvbocha icloud.com Subject: Negative Impacts to Ocean Park Date: Tuesday,June 9,2020 12:34:17 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Matt Farrell and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive & Marlin Bay from B- 2 PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you, Matt Farrell From: Christi Tsolakis To: William R.Landfair Subject: New Real Estate Development: Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 30,2020 1:31:57 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission Member for Bayside: I live in the Ocean Park neighborhood for the past 58 years. I am 91 years old and I have lived thru all the changes of Virginia Beach and Ocean Park. Our area became very congested, our sleepy neighborhood became a party town for the weekenders and our lifestyle deteriorated significantly. The proposed Marlin Bay (Mega) Apartments will further destroy our neighborhood. Our streets, shore drive and our neighborhood beach can not handle any more residents. If we need something is more shopping for our neighborhood. We need no more traffic and no more congestion. As members of the planning commission you have the responsibility to maintain the quality of life of our neighborhoods. Please do something to stop the Mega Marlin Bay Apartments. I recognize that our neighborhood will not return to 1962 but it does not need to become more congested and it will me nice to remain a family neighborhood. I am writing this email from my daughter's email account since I gave up my own sometime ago. Thank you for caring and planning for our City. Elizabeth (Betty) Bryan 2217 Powhatan Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23455 757-464-0659 JUNE 4, 2020 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO OCEAN PARK HI: OUR NAMES ARE BOB & BARB MCCRUDDEN AND WE ARE AN OCEAN PARK HOMEOWNER& RESIDENT. WE OPPOSE THE REQUEST TO INCREASE DENSITY AND THE REZONING FOR MARLIN BAY APARTMENTS ON SHORE DRIVE & MARLIN BAY FROM B2-PDH-1 TO CONDITIONAL B-4. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO ANY DEVELOPMENT BUT WANT TO ENSURE IT IS IN LINE WITH THE COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE HERE. PLEASE BE ADVISED OF OUR MANY CONCERNS REGARDING THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO OCEAN PARK AND THE SHORE DRIVE CORRIDOR IN VIRGINIA BEACH. • IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SHORE DRIVE OVERLAY A PARCEL OF 4 ACRES OR MORE CAN HAVE 36 UNITS PER ACRE WHICH IS 108 NOT 227 • ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY NEEDS TO BE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT ON PHP • PARKING SPILLING ON TO MARLIN BAY & SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS • EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE SERVING OCEAN PARK • NOT IN LINE WITH VIRGINIA BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 4 STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH 227 UNITS WITH A 400+ CAR PARKING CAPABILITY. THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN THIS AREA IS UNCONSCIONABLE. BOB & BARB MCCRUDDEN 2333 RALEIGH AVE VIRGINIA BEACH VA 23455 EMAIL: BBMCCRUDDEN@YAHOO.COM From: Stephanie Baker To: Bob M.Dyer• Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCa icloud,com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: No Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Wednesday,June 3,2020 11:13:28 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, My name is Stephanie Baker, and I am a Virginia Beach native and a homeowner and resident of the Mariners Landing neighborhood of Ocean Park for 19 years. I strongly oppose the request to rezone land at the corner of Marlin Bay Drive and Shore Drive from B-2 PD-Hl to B-4. I am not opposed to development, but I want to ensure any development of that area is in line with the current community of townhomes and the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your time, Stephanie Baker From: Deborah BlankmaR To: Bob M.Dyer Cc: Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCo�icloud.com;Louis R.Jones;)ames L.Wood Subject: NO to Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Sunday,June 7,2020 10:02:57 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Debbie Blankman and I'm an Ocean Park homeowner.I STRONGLY oppose the request to increase density and rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. Shore Drive already has too much traffic and speeding issues.The last thing we need is additional density in this area. Debbie Blankman From: Bitch LaTulioQ To: Bob M.Dver;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;clredmondvbocaC�icloud.com;jriones(avboov.com;James L Wood Subject: No to Rezoning(Marlin Bay Apartments) Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 9:07:23 AM LCAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments L you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To All, My name is Ritch LaTulipe and I am a long-term resident of the Ocean Park neighborhood. I have seen many changes to our area over the last 20 years. Some good,some not. I oppose the request to increase density(Once Again in our area) and rezoning for the Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive& Marlin Bay B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I strongly oppose any increase in density to existing rules. I have long envisioned retiring in my home which I have paid off several years ago. Recently with higher taxes and major traffic increases, I fear my dream is in danger. If you have ever driven Shore Drive at rush hour,you would understand how I feel.4 acres can have 36 unites per acre which is a max of 108.The requested 227 is ridiculous and should under no circumstances be approved. I implore you to consider making this decision under the premise you live in this neighborhood. Regards, Ritch LaTulipe 3727 W. Stratford RD From: )eff Keznor To: William R.Landfair Subject: Ocean Park Development Date: Tuesday,May 26,2020 3:05:40 PM rCAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I Hi, my name is Jeff Keznor and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here." Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app.mail.mobile.aol.conl From: Jessica Rossi To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R. Landfair;dredmondvboc(dlicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Ocean Park rezoning Date: Thursday,June 4,2020 2:02:22 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, My name is Jessica Rossi and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive from B2 —PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you, PLEASE READ: In light of current COVID-19 concerns and recommendations from VDH and the CDC regarding group gatherings,Shaheen Law Firm requests that ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO SIGN CLOSING DOCUMENTS ATTEND CLOSING. This is in an effort to protect the wellbeing of our clients and staff. We recognize closing is a celebratory event and apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you for your understanding. Jessica Rossi I Real Estate Paralegal Southside Office 15041 Corporate Woods Drive,Suite 150 I Virginia Beach, VA 23462 USA Peninsula Office 112350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 100 I Newport News,VA 23602 USA Note: Please overnight all seller packages to the office in which the closing will take place. Direct: +1 757 961 5578 I Fax: +1 888 641 2611 I http://www.shaheenlaw.com/ Ask me about how Shaheen Law Firm now accepts Earnest Money Deposits(EMD) via Electronic Check. NOTICE:Shaheen Law Firm is closely monitoring the developing COVID-19 crisis.While providing uninterrupted service,we are also taking all necessary precautions to protect the health and safety of our employees,clients,and partners.As new developments emerge,please refer to our website at www.shaheenlaw.com and our Facebook page www.facebook.com/ShaheenLawFirm for the most up-to-date information regarding firm business,courthouse closures,and any other emergency announcements. If you have any concerns,please do not hesitate to contact me directly. The Shaheen Law Firm, P.C. implementation of ALTA Best Practices has been certified by the CPA firm Keiter The information contained in this message is confidential.Any unintended use,printing,copying,disclosure or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.No confidentiality or privilege is waived by any unintentional transmission. This message and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or defect.It is the responsibility of the recipient however,to ensure that this message is virus free. We do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message or for any loss or damage.Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.Messages sent to and from us may be monitored.If you believe that you have received this message in error,please contact us. From: Kevin La Croix To: Bob M.Over;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair; redmondvboc(@icloud,com;Louis R.Jones;)ames L.Wood Subject: Ocean Park rezoning Date: Monday,June 1,2020 3:47:00 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Kevin La Croix of 3752 Rockbridge Road-homeowner in Ocean Park. I strongly oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2 -PDH- 1 to conditional B -4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Kevin La Croix From: SCDRP Director To: Bob M.Dye( Cc: Mark E.She William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;)essica Wood Subject: OCEAN PARK:NO MORE DEVELOPMENT!!! Date: Monday,June 1,2020 5:36:13 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments 1 unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Mr. Dyer, esteemed Council members, and Planning Commission representatives, Please, no more development! The condos going up in this neighborhood already, along the Brock, and on Shore Dr are enough!! We don't want it to become like the east side of the Lesner on Shore. I am an Ocean Park resident and I 100% OPPOSE the request to further increase population densities in my neighborhood, and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. & Marlin Bay from B2 PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I'm not against development, but enough is enough. The parking situation is already terrible, and compounding that with emergency response, and simply the lack of alignment with the vision of the VB comprehensive plan makes this intensive development prospect ring more like money in the bank for a few, and zero accountability for the ramifications and consequences in our neighborhood. I live on Dupont Circle and this would threaten to ruin the community vibe. If you support this, it seems that you may be more about simply making a few developers rich and ignoring the will of the people in this area. Nobody in our area is for this, except for maybe other developers who have already chewed away at the awesome history and tradition of the Ocean Park community. Please make it stop. PLEASE consider the people you serve NOW, in this neighborhood. We don't want this. Thank you, Barbara Dr. Barbara Bischof,Ph.D. 1 Director, Southeast and Caribbean Disaster Resilience Partnership (SCDRP) E: scdrp@secoora.org I PH: (305) 490-0644 I www.scdrp.secoora.org TWITTER: @SCDRP_resilient From: Patsy Hassell To: William R.Landfair Subject: Ocean Park-Marlin Bay Rezoning Date: Saturday,May 30,2020 12:17:35 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Landfair: We are residents, business and homeowners of Ocean Park, Patricia Hassell &John Garris. We oppose the request to increase density and rezone for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay, ie, B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. We are not opposed to all development, but we want to ensure any development is in line with the community and quality of life in Ocean Park. Respectfully, Patricia Hassell John Garris Namaste From: oai T To: Bob M,Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCa icloud.com Cc: Deborah Cohen Subject: On Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Wednesday,May 27,2020 6:44:15 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Tetsuo (Ted) Ogiwara and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Tetsuo Ogiwara From: Courtney West To: Mark E.Shea;Bob M.Dyer;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCa)icloud.com;Louis R.Jones;)ames L.Wood Subject: Opposal of Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Sunday,June 14,2020 9:05:38 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Evening, I am a homeowner in Ocean Park. I deeply oppose the request to increase density and allow rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive from B2-PDH-1 to Conditional B4. I do not oppose all development in the area, but it needs to be in the best interest of the community and quality of life in Ocean Park. I oppose the rezoning because: -According to the Shore Dr overlay, a parcel of land of 4 acres or more can have 36 units per acre,which is 108, not 227. --Parking is already a problem in the area and it is likely that street parking will spill onto Marlin Bay and the surrounding streets in the neighborhood, including mine. --The impact to emergency response, including EMS and Fire.The area is already dense and has experienced multiple fires in recent history. With additional homes that needed coverage, EMS may not be available to the homeowners in the neighborhood and access to houses may be blocked by additional traffic on Shore Drive and in the neighborhood. _Many units just built on the other side of the Lenser Bridge remain empty. More units are not needed to add traffic and stress to the resources on Shore Drive. --As a teacher in Virginia Beach, I know that schools are already overcrowded. Rezoning could cause a huge increase in the number of students attending the local schools, affecting the size of classes and resources given to the children of homeowners in the neighborhood. -A full environmental study needs to be performed,to determine the impact on the Pleasure House Point Natural Area.The assertion that the project will have less environmental impact and lower volume of runoff than the existing structures is not logical. Further investigation is needed... --I do not believe this development is in line with the Virginia Beach comprehensive plan. Thank you for the consideration of the needs of the neighborhood and Shore Drive corridor. Sincerely, Courtney West Courtney Cocke West 308 E Stratford Rd VA Beach. VA 23455 From: Robert Gradel To: William R.Landfair Subject: Oppose Rezoning for Proposed Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 8:28:02 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Landfair, I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and rezoning from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is aligned with the community and quality of life. Ocean Park is already becoming increasingly crowded; encourage retail and restaurant usage of the available space or allow only single family homes or duplex housing. I urge you to oppose the rezoning request. Sincerely, Robert Gradel Whispering Sands Lane From: Christopher Schectman To: William R.Landfair Subject: Opposed to Rezoning Date: Friday,June 19,2020 4:14:43 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am opposed the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr.and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4.I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thanks, Chris Schectman From: Krista Shanafelt To: )3ob M.Dyer;Mark E,Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCalicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;)ames L.Wood Subject: Opposing Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,June 5,2020 5:09:58 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening, I hope that this email finds you well,healthy and safe. My name is Krista and I am an Ocean Park resident. I wanted to express my opposition to the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I have many concerns about the magnitude of this project. I am not opposed to development that is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Take care Krista Shanafelt From: John Pharr To: William R.Landfair Subject: Opposition of marlin bay condos Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 7:17:22 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is John Pharr and I am an Ocean Park (resident, homeowner, business owner). I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Sincerely, John Pharr 2105 Woodlawn Avenue Vb, VA 23455 Sent from my iPhone From: Courtney Pharr To: William R.Landfair Subject: Opposition to Ocean Park rezoning Date: Friday,May 29,2020 8:21:05 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, Please note my vote below: "Hi, my name is Courtney A. S. Pharr and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH 1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development,but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here." Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Best, Courtney A. S. Pharr From: Mike Dawe To: Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(aicloud.com Subject: Opposition to Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Wednesday,June 3,2020 8:51:06 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Gentlemen, My name is Mike Dawe and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive& Marlin Bay Drive from B-2- PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with this community and quality of life here. I am concerned that the existing infrastructure cannot adequately support the increased density,which could seriously impact the surrounding neighborhoods, Pleasure House Point,the wetlands, and the Chesapeake Bay. For this reason, I feel this is a bad idea without first completing a comprehensive environmental assessment and ask that you consider this a requirement before this project moves forward. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, M. D. Dawe 3632 E Stratford Rd Virginia Beach,VA 23455 m.dawe( verizon.net 757-617-0673 From: LYNLEA RUDELL To: William R.Landfair Subject: Opposition to Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Thursday,May 28,2020 8:39:36 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Bill, My name is Lynlea Rudell and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH 1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Concerns include: - In accordance with the Shore Drive overlay a parcel of 4 acres or more can have 36 units max per acre, which would be 108 units not 227 -Environmental study needs to be performed to determine the impact on Pleasure House Point -Parking spilling onto Marlin Bay and surrounding neighborhoods -Emergency service response serving Ocean Park -Not in line with Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan Thank you, Lynlea Rudell From: )ennifer Snyder Subject: Opposition to the Marlin Bay Proposal Date: Thursday,July 9,2020 8:32:34 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, My name is Jenny Snyder and I am a resident of Ocean Park. I am writing to oppose the proposed development along Shore Dr and Marlin Bay in the 23455 area. I am very concerned about the proposed density of this development as it is not in agreement with the existing land use in our neighborhood. I feel a development of this size would significantly change the atmosphere of our neighborhood without adding value. My primary concern is placing such a high-density apartment building beside a nature preserve. Virginia Beach worked very hard to preserve Pleasure House Park. It is my family's favorite place in the city. I enjoy walking or running through the trails multiple days a week. I take visitors there to appreciate the beauty of our city. Pleasure House Park is a wonderful recreational space that brings value to Virginia Beach. Increasing traffic of both vehicles and humans will have a negative impact on that space. Virginia Beach is in the process of establishing a magnet program with the Brock Environmental Center. It seems contradictory that the city would want to invest in environmental programs for students while simultaneously agreeing to outrageous land use proposals just next door. Secondly, I know the city is working to mitigate flooding. Along Shore Drive we've seen significant growth in the number of high rise buildings. The Pearl, The Overture, and others have already contributed to the increasing pavement and congestion along the Shore Drive corridor. Allowing for more greenspace fits in with the strategic plan to use natural ways to mitigate storm water and flooding issues. I understand the development is inevitable but I urge you to stick with the existing zoning of the space. Encourage the developer to propose solutions that fit with the neighborhood. It would be great to see a mixed-use space that brings small businesses (restaurants, shops, etc) alongside fewer units. Or a mix of single family and duplex style units as you see throughout the neighborhood. Thank you so much for your time. Regards, Jennifer Snyder, MPH, CHES Jennifer Snyder,MPH From: Karen Cocke To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbpc(alidoud.com;jriones( vbgov.corri;)ames L. Y(445� Cc: Nome Subject: Opposition to the Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Saturday,June 20,2020 1:12:00 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sirs: I am writing in opposition to the 227-unit apartment complex proposed for the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay. As a resident of the Shore Drive corridor, I know first hand many of the problems this development would exacerbate: • Increased traffic on the third most-traveled road in the city; • Increased foot-traffic across the third most-traveled road in the city; • Increased noise- it is truly amazing the number of sirens once hears all day long in this area! • Increased noise, trash and environmental damage to the Pleasure House Point natural area. • Increased environmental impact to the Bay beaches--Already to be impacted by the future massive influx of people from the Pearl at Marina Shores, the new Westminister Canterbury addition, and the renovated hotel at Shore Drive and Great Neck Road. And, • Until the massive "Pearl at Marina Shores" apartment complex is fully-rented, which could take years,the Marlin Bay complex is certainly not needed! • The many new and renovated number of duplexes in the area raise no objections. If housing is to be constructed at Marlin Bay, it should be these kinds of structures-- duplexes, townhouses--lower occupancy housing. • New commercial development is preferable to additional housing. Thank you for your careful consideration of the negative impact this apartment complex would incur. Sincerely, Karen Cocke 3229 Page Ave. Virginia Beach, VA 23 lau.xoa@ I a)£aa L6ZL-L68-LSL From: Jonathan Macy To: William R.Landfair Subject: Oppostion to Marlin Bay Apartments in Ocean Park Date: Sunday,July 12,2020 5:47:56 PM Attachments: Marlin Bay Support Attachment.odf CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Landfiar, It has come to my attention, as a resident of Ocean Park, that a developer is proposing a 227 unit apartment complex at the corner of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive.To be able to accomplish this, the developer is proposing the rezoning of approximately 6.3 acres to B4 (Multi use, Residential & Commercial), based on information from their web site. I have been a resident of Ocean Park for over twelve years.The proposed development is incongruent with the existing community. The following is a specific list of reasons why I oppose this development. Population Density: A physical count of mail boxes was completed for Ocean Park on the south side of Shore Drive. With ongoing construction, approximately 469 mail boxes were counted. On the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission's website it states that Virginia Beach has an average 2.6 persons per residence. Using the number of mail boxes and persons per residence, the south side of Ocean Park has a population of approximately 1,219 people. In the proposed site plan, as it is currently zoned, there are 2.17 acres of PDH1 (Residential only) that is undeveloped. Zoning for PDH1 allows twelve units to be built per acre. If the land parcels were to be developed as currently zoned only an additional 26 units could be built thereby adding an additional 68 persons to the population. As zoned, this would represent an increase in population density for the area of 5.6%.The developer is proposing the addition of a 227 unit complex.The proposed complex would add an approximate additional 590 persons to the population. If the proposed development goes through, Ocean Park on the south side of Shore Drive, will have a population density increase of 48.4%. For this reason I oppose this development! Traffic;On the proposed development's website www.marlinbayvb.com they have included a traffic study report. Their study is limited to only the traffic at two intersections; the intersection of Marlin Bay Drive & Shore Drive and the intersection of Powhatan Avenue & Shore Drive. On page 1 in the attachment these intersections are denoted as#1 and #2 respectively.To fully understand the traffic implications a more expansive view of Shore Drive has to be considered. In the Shore Drive Corridor Plan, which was adopted by the City Council of Virginia Beach on March 28, 2000 and includes the Shore Drive Corridor Study that was prepared by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, a very comprehensive traffic study was completed.The study included recommendations. At the time the study was done in June 1999, the interchange from Shore Drive to south bound Northampton Boulevard had a Level of Service rating of"F". Without improvements the study projected a 2020 Level of Service rating for that interchange to be an "F". Level of Service is rated from A to F with A being the best and F being the worst.The desired minimum Level of Service rating for any interchange is a D. Since that study, done 20 years ago, no capacity improvements have been made. The study completed 20 years ago stated: "Most accidents in the study area occurred in the vicinity of Northampton Boulevard." "Shore Drive in the vicinity of Northampton Boulevard is the most congested section in the study area during both the morning and afternoon peak hours." "Extreme delays are expected to continue to occur at the interchange of Shore Drive and Northampton Boulevard unless capacity improvements are implemented." Taking a broader view, we also have to consider the construction of numerous multi-unit housing complexes and condominiums during the past 10-15 years.The most recent additions are;The Overture Apartments at Shore Drive and Page Avenue which added 172 units,The Point Chesapeake Condominiums which are being built behind the Overture adding 48 units,The Pearl Apartments which are being built near the intersection of Shore Drive and North Great Neck Road adding 199 units. All the growth along the Shore Drive Corridor has continued to put additional stress on the traffic problem.The proposed Marlin Bay development will add 227 units and 410 multi-family parking spaces.The proposed development will only continue to exacerbate a traffic problem that the City has known about for the past 20 years. For this reason, I oppose this development! Safetyz In general, in the Ocean Park Community, non residential parking is quite limited. Many of the streets are narrow with dead ends. On weekends and holidays, non residents look for anywhere they can park their vehicle both legally and illegally. At times, vehicles are parked in a manner that would prevent a safety vehicle, such as a fire truck or ambulance, to pass by. Having a residence on the dead end portion of Jefferson Boulevard I am very aware of this issue.The proposed development will add 227 units and a projected 590 residents. When those 590 residents invite all of their friends to come and enjoy the beach with them, where are they going to park? I am not opposed to people coming and enjoying the beach. What I am opposed to is a further increase in non resident inappropriate vehicular parking that places residents and their homes of Ocean Park at risk. For this reason, I oppose this development! Zoning Ordinance: The developer proposes the rezoning of approximately 6.3 acres from PDH1 and B2 (Commercial only) to B4. Refer to page 1 in the attachment for the proposed site. Currently, in the proposed site there are 2.17 acres zoned PDH1 and 3.15 acres zoned B2 for a total of 5.32 acres. In order to reach the 6.3 acres the developer will have to acquire the following streets from the City of Virginia Beach: Oceans Tides Drive—Actual, Oceans Tides Drive— Extended (paper) and Clipper Bay Drive— Extended (paper). Refer to page 2 in the attachment. Virginia Beach Zoning allows 36 units to be built per acre on property zoned B4. The number of units calculation is 6.3 acres times 36 units per acre which is equal to 226.8 (6.3 x 36= 226.8) Rounding that number up means that 227 units can be built on the 6.3 acre construction site parcel. If you look at page 3 in the attachment, in the top right corner, after construction the existing boat sales building and parking remain. Using the VB Zoning website I found the GIS information for the existing boat sales parcel and found that parcel to be 1.04 acres. Since I could not calculate the acreage associated with the streets I used the boat sales parcel of 1.04 acres as a reference. If you refer to page 4 in the attachment, I cut and pasted 6 boat sales parcels and covered the area for the proposed 6.3 acre zoning change. If the existing boat sales remain and is not part of the construction site,then the acreage associated with that parcel cannot be included in the calculation of the number of units.The developer is using the zoning acreage change for their calculation of units and not what the actual construction site acreage will be which has to be less than 5.3 acres. At 5.3 acres and 36 units per acre the total numbers would have to be approximately 191 or less.The developer's proposal does not appear to be in compliance with the City of Virginia Beach zoning ordinance. For this reason, I oppose this development. Respectfully Submitted, Jonathan Macy Ocean Park Resident .are. . ., 4 ii* . .. P. tea,_' 'i 3 r '7 : •v SStr 'R a.}.. �,`, '' - t. ,. F c,�' _I~ rr a �3.S ups Landing .« °� !' i "'^^^i�� "AO.` b <Gayr.?o ,e, i • it: ,, SITE �.\ ,... . �,.,. . ; iN„,,, , 4 ;€ ' • �� i LIL•a Tits [[ �,c c I�t 1 �, s. � • ':fit * • ;. ° . + i , �yti: Y^ 1 r • © w P `b- -k.- '. - ., '�' LEGEND: .5 y •M, µ �: a ._` f . - �t« I Existing Road {. :.� „ ' \,_< e 1 ` --- Proposed Road . ��^a a stir Proposed Site sr Nic / �. .' ( Existing Study Intersection tq •• ! is�, 1 .S .- ;%% XO Proposed Study Intersection .•s••� Site Location Map and Study Intersections Figure TIMMONS GROUP Marlin Bay Apartments City of Virginia Beach, VA 1-1 . Ir. ' d , , Sing ' --- 71. /NI, . ---- _it ''..\.: .• A) • - .., • ---7' - '`---- ' ' b ' '---- " 41,, nil ' :: " ° ilie _...,.....___ , 7/9_178c: .,:, , 0 • C46' er• s°a's aa Co • - 1 9/ . ^0 *St ''•fiA t , , / ,---- ,e, ,-. "---,, i , IF. IIlik,,,„,,,' :- ... y. /---...nIP"'" •-, .+ ..4.,--.Th' , '. • 0. : , - 1 --r.' ; '-w--7,7 **",, . 6Car ,, . , , . 1 --,,,, • Y i j .......ii . ......,0. atec .., - - - -Wt.itiic di 63 tie Xlii Ua ........ i .,, _... , (""----1 f.„. .. i i,- ,., ,---t,., - I ,,,----------- .......„.... „ . -...„....... . illit ow} I' ' i ( ---,....„.„ J . i 111 I.c, • ' a , ? . .,......- .. 4 • 15- ti 1i'5 . alit __,......,. ..... .... _ ...,.. \ ' . , . . r- if 14 1• Ott \\ . \ 4 1 L _ 1 .. • •)1 a 7 IA i L . , , . 4.. _ , ....... mann ammammernas ____..,,, ....mmnur,............sc ............................,..,.....***°. ' ..,.. 5. 43if ....57 'E Y 4t/ ± 1 'z• i , k E/ ZS .2...i_y /mod i b d Li: s g � fr .... . . , _ __ , .. — r W it c o 1 i'. oi5:41 < : : 't° !, ; i5 ! '--t• . xN. I.—__ LLI QV+ Q Ql7. S`1u, VI O ux- • f a m •G T + $ ‘ ; --" ..'"'w,. -\\ # . . ' 't~ '':,. 1 ' 44 �_ i F v !� , J ' a) t i Pr ,t , s " s 4' --'-d-- Ci- 7 L •L co CC1 i \ „ , i . pr... --?*.: ; 4- C flv I 416, \_._- �� A st } Tr i . b tO Cs. .. FT+ .' { I. _d 4 • ;7 �N/� r' Z { Y - - ir .. ci q ` O �I C _3 i ' Q Z r 3 5-(° FT 27Ack t- A N PrI�.t Ya IL Gtrld I 5c r Let •• / t.` 1 '1 \ i \ \ 4, .1., CXI$ T( 0(7 t RrT-11A/ / (A/(7 \ ')4\f-s.,..............._.-----/ ---,-;.• ...1 \ ,n / 1 4 it 1� \ T 2 P ((// i ti r tt , y SITE DATA: •' - '� r :�f, t. 'fix / �7 TOTAL AREA,..,- REA 6.3.h At. s `,� y \ \ ExisnN4 ZONING: B@ 8 PDF t 'si ''4 I ,.,rt` ' PROPOSED ZONMK CornONanalB4 `. a .: ti . .�.i•^/ MAX.SITE COVERAGE: 7511(474/-AC)Aitt �bt • ; ; PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE: 5371(3.3 i AC) y,, sfl �3 �. � TOTAL UNITS 227 IL . T. ti s n 'S PARKING REQUIRED 41251MCE5 �'i .� ,� �' +Sita' �' c. `"`, r r` ROAT SALES 2 SPACES p -* �'• t..�A r r e, �h L r + \ % MULTI FAMILY410 SPM4CF, tl'I .s P 7r,6 {.(1 ap v \ ti t „. e tr.MF I^I+;HIDED -1,,P111,. ,' e- MARLIN BAY - up.;"IA RFA( Fe VA N . TIMMONS GROUP .. e • . Conceptual Site Layout t •. Figure TIMMONS GROUP Marlin Bay Apartments City of Virginia Beach, VA 1-2 Dear Councilman, My name is Scott Ayers, I Live in Ocean Park on property that has been in my wife's family since the early 1930's. I have built 3 homes in the community. My daughter and her husband moved back to Va Beach from another state to raise her family and built a new home in Ocean Park 3 years ago. I own an office building on Shore Drive from which I run my family business.This past January after 20 years I stepped down from my service on The Bayfront Advisory Commission. I think it's clear that Ocean Park and the Shore Drive corridor are very special to me and my family. It's a great place with a lifestyle that is attractive to many. Crumbling infrastructure,dangerous roadways,eroding beaches,and overbuilding has taken its'toll. I've had to wait up to ten minutes some days just to access Shore Drive. It's time to let Shore Drive and Ocean Park catch its breath. Let some planned and in some cases partially funded public improvements take place.Ocean Park with the exception of some B-2 and B-4 commercial zoned property fronting on Shore Drive has been residentially zoned and developed going back to the early 1900's. With the exception of 3 condos at the foot of the Lesner Bridge 99%of residences are single family or duplex.There have been a couple PDH rezonings but density has not exceeded 12/acre.The proposed Marlin Bay apartment project requires a rezoning of the consolidated property of B-2 fronting on Shore Drive and a PDH-1( 12/acre)to 36/acre. It wasn't that long ago that the City of Virginia Beach participated in the acquisition of Please House Point which was planned for a similar density on buildable land. It's a park now directly across from the proposed development. On the NW corner of Marlin Bay Drive and Shore Drive the city in cooperation with the state has sponsored the creation of a LOVE sign/landmark. While on the BAC we often discussed the vision of Shore Drive from US 13 to Ocean Park being a city gateway.The new fire station at Greenwell and Shore was a great start but a 217 unit 4story apartment building rising up as you descend Shore Drive from Baylake Pines is not!.The number of Ocean Park residences located on the south side of Shore Drive would increase by almost 50% if the proposed apartments are approved.The community is firmly against this project as planned. I ask that you do everything in your power to vote this project down.The community would like to see the property developed but not as planned.The developers have indicated that if they don't get the approval as now planned the project is economically not feasible.That may be for what they have planned but it is no secret that the developers involved are more than able to do the right thing and create an asset that they and the community are proud of within the existing zoning.Please do not allow the character of this great neighborhood to change!Thank you. From: Ken Yaaelski To: William R.Landfair Subject: Proposed Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,May 29,2020 8:37:35 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, I am a resident of the beautiful Ocean Park neighborhood. This short message is simply to let you know that I oppose the pending request to increase density and rezone the area at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4 for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments. I am not opposed to development for Virginia Beach and the Shore Drive area,but I want to make certain that it improves the community and quality of life for everyone that is affected. That is not the case with this proposal. Thank you, Ken Yagelski Ken Yagelski kialaagdg1.Gom 703.656.6031 @yagelski on most networks From: Margaret Inge To: William R.Landfair Subject: Proposed Marlin Bay Development Date: Wednesday,May 27,2020 10:51:24 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Margaret Inge and I am an Ocean Park homeowner and full time resident . I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. If built as proposed, this will negatively impact Ocean Park by: In accordance with the Shore Drive overlay a parcel of 4 acres or more can have 36 units per acre which is 108 not 227 Environmental study needs to be performed to determine the impact on PHP Parking spilling onto Marlin Bay and surrounding neighborhoods Emergency service response serving Ocean Park Not in line with Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan Please don't approve this development. From: )eff Kimball To: William R.Landfair Subject: Proposed Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments in Ocean Park Date: Thursday,May 28,2020 5:08:59 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Landfair, My name is Jeff Kimball and I have been an Ocean Park homeowner since 1995. I strongly oppose the request to rezone the property at Shore Drive at Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development, but the Marlin Bay proposal's increased density would negatively impact quality of life for current residents of Ocean Park for the reasons listed below: -Environmental impact of Pleasure House Point and adjacent tidal waters. -Parking spilling over onto Marlin Bay and adjacent side streets (proposed parking plan inadequate for the number of units). -Pedestrian traffic crossing Shore Drive for beach access. - Impact to emergency services and infrastructure in Ocean Park. -Not in line with Shore Drive vision or Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. -DENSITY IS TOO HIGH. The original zoning for that parcel of land exists for a reason. Simply stated, the density of this project is too high and is not congruent with the character of Ocean Park. A development such as Three Ships Landing with single family homes and/or duplexes would avoid the negative aspects listed above. Please listen to the residents of Ocean Park, not the developers. Sincerely, Peter J. (Jeff) Kimball 2173 Woodlawn Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23454 757-343-5783 From: Jacobs.Edward H, To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbodaicloud.com;Louis R.Jones.)ames L.Wood Subject: Proposed Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Wednesday,June 3,2020 4:11:55 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello: My name is Edward Jacobs and I live and am a homeowner at 2204 Sunvista Dr., VB 23455. I am writing to oppose the request to rezone Marlin Bay Apartments from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4.The proposed 227-unit addition to an already crowed area would vastly increase population density and traffic in my neighborhood, which are both already extreme, especially in the summer months. I understand the need for development so that others can share the pleasures I enjoy, but a development of this size would, in my experience as a 21- year resident here, greatly degrade the community and quality of life in our neighborhood. Please oppose this proposed rezoning. Thank you very much. Best, Edward Jacobs, Ph.D. Professor of English Literature Program Coordinator Department of English 4030 Batten Arts&Letters Bldg. Hampton Blvd.&45th Old Dominion University Norfolk,VA 23529 tel 757 683 4028 fax 757 683 3241 ejacobs@odu.edu From: esvauohn2cox.net To: William R.Landfair Subject: Proposed Shore Drive Apartments Date: Monday,June 15,2020 3:04:33 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon, My name is Sid Vaughn and I am an Ocean Park homeowner and resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2- PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan, the community, and the quality of life. Sincerely, Dr. E. Sidney Vaughn III 2081 Tazewell Road 650-2944 From: rasdjuftmail,com To: Bob M,Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc a icloud.com;aalcarazvboc(a�icloud.com; warahamVBPC(@icloud.com;Jiorslev donCowahoo.com;mainman( inmanstrickler,con7;branch,oliver(4mail.com; johnhcoston(agmail.com;RKIeinVBPMcloud.com;jckwalaaol,com;dweinerftatchelderbrick.com;Louis R. Jones;James L.Wood;tanklines(ahaol.com;ayersmorganstgmail.com; Fchristie3scox.net;walkatdamaaol.com; Pdavenoort9(a�cox.net;aeefaisonftmail.com;whearst@verizon.net;5shiflet35Cavahoo.com; Mthomas2001Calamail,com Subject: Re Rezoning Request for Marlin Bay Apartments.... Date: Friday,June 26,2020 11:02:46 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Dyer,Virginia Beach Planning Commission Members, and City Council. My Name is Rebecca Soldwisch and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I'm writing because I strongly OPPOSE the request before you to rezone the property at the corner of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. Rezoning this parcel in order to build apartments will undoubtedly increase the density and simultaneously decrease the quality of life in my neighborhood. It is disturbing and disappointing to see a development of this size proposed for this site. It is too big,is not in harmony with the vibe of the community overall and will only serve to bring more traffic(vehicular and pedestrian)to an area already experiencing it's fair share. It seems-- especially at this moment in time when we are living through a pandemic--that the proposal to build these apartments is at odds with what is most precious and rare and that is space; it is a horrible time to stack so many people on top of one another. Progress is necessary, and I am aware this site should have more purpose than it currently has now,but it should be thoughtful, engage the community,and uphold current zoning(the sole purpose of which is to prevent outsized,nonconforming development). It is my hope that you will reject the request to rezone this property and encourage the owners and developers to devise a usage plan that better fits the zoning and interests of the community at large. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rebecca Soldwisch Water Oaks, Virginia Beach Va From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: FW:Against rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,June 4,2021 11:07:57 AM From: Randy Betz<randybetz@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday,June 8, 2020 8:19 AM To: Bob M. Dyer<BDyer@vbgov.com>; Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com>; William R. Landfair <WLandfair@vbgov.com>; dredmondvbac@icloud.com; Louis R.Jones<LRJones@vbgov.com>; James L. Wood <JLWood@vbgov.com> Cc: Barbara Mease<bsmease48@gmail.com>;tinacalavo@gmail.com; Meghan Betz <mbetz75@gmail.com>; R. David Betz<rdbetz@hotmail.com> Subject:Against rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Randall W. Betz, a homeowner in Ocean Park (Aeries on the Bay). I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. The proposed residence density would be absolutely too much for this neighborhood. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the Ocean Park area quality of life. There is also an opportunity to expand the outstanding focus on nature that nearby Pleasure House Point affords Virginia Beach residents such as providing green space and an extended bicycle/pedestrian path. Randall W. Betz 2344 Rookery Way Virginia Beach,VA 23455 From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: FW: CONCERN OVER REZONING REQUEST BY MARLIN BAY APARTMENTS Date: Friday,June 4,2021 11:08:30 AM From: Ann Tatman Bennis<anntbennisPgmail.corn> Sent: Monday,June 1, 2020 12:49 PM To: Bob M. Dyer<BDyerPvbgov.com>; Mark E.Shea<MESheaPvbgov.com>; William R. Landfair <WLandfairPVbgov.com>; dredmondVbpcPicloud.com; Louis R.Jones<LRJonesPvbgov.com>; James L. Wood <JLWoodPvbgov.com> Subject: CONCERN OVER REZONING REQUEST BY MARLIN BAY APARTMENTS CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Gentleman: My name is Ann Bennis and I am a longtime resident of Ocean Park. I am also a registered voter and I act on that privilege at every opportunity. I am writing to you to OPPOSE the request by Marlin Bay Apartments to increase density from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. My concerns are that the proposed apartments more than double the accepted standard for units per acre. HIGH DENSITY is not in the best interest of my community. I am concerned about the environmental impact the building will have on PLEASURE HOUSE POINT which is an asset to our City and must be protected. I am seriously concerned about the PARKING ISSUES this density will create for PHP and the surrounding neighborhoods. There will also be a SIGNIFICANT BURDEN on our EMS/FIRE Services. I respect long term planning and progress for our City, however, approving this change is NOT IN COMPLIANCE with our approve VIRGINIA BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I understand that the City and the citizens would benefit by more revenue. However, it should be in line with the stated community values and SUPPORT not ERODE the quality of life we enjoy. Thank you for representing my concerns in this matter. Ann Bennis From: 5tacev Shiflet To: J3ob M.Dyer; Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCahicloud.com;aalcarazvboc(o�icloud.com; warahamvboc(alicloud.com;Jiorslev don(@vahoo.com;mainman(Tinmanstrickler.com;branch.oliver(alamail.com; johnhcoston(agmail.conL rkleinvboc(a�icloud,com;ickwall(olaol.com;dweiner(abatchelderbrick.com; Louis R. )ones;James L.Wood;tanklines(@aol.com;aversmorgan(@amail.com;fchristie3(acox.net;walkatdam(@aol.com; pdavenoort9(acox.net;geefaisoneamail.corn;whearstCoverizon.net;mthomas2001(aamail.com; Dawn Hrelic Subject: Re:Concerned resident Date: Friday,June 19,2020 5:48:19 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Dawn! Thank you for sending the email regarding Marlin Bay Apartments rezoning. We have not met since February and our next meeting is July where we will hear a presentation of this project. We have received information from Mark Shea with the City of Virginia Beach which I will go over prior to our July meeting. Have a great weekend! -Stacey (757) 513-5954 On Wednesday, June 17, 2020, 09:43:56 AM EDT, Dawn Hrelic<dawn.unc@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, my name is Dawn Hrelic and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Sent from my iPhone From: Nancy G To: Bob M.Dyer; dredmondvboc(aicloud.com;James L.Wood;Louis R.Jones;Mark E.Shea; William R.Landfair Subject: Re:Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Saturday,June 13,2020 11:59:57 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments I unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon Gentlemen: My name is Nancy Gilliar and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and re-zoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Sincerely, Nancy Gilliar 3932 W Stratford Rd Virginia Beach VA 23455 From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: RN: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,June 4,2021 11:10:24 AM From:stlw0l<stlw01( vahoo.com> Sent: Monday,June 8, 2020 11:02 AM To: Bob M. Dyer<BDyerPvbgov.com>; Mark E. Shea<MESheaPvbgov.com>; William R. Landfair <WLandfairPvbgov.com>; dredmondvbpcPicloud.com; Louis R.Jones<LRJonesPvbgov.com>; James L. Wood <JLWoodPvbgov.com> Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, My name is Stephanie Lowe. I am a homeowner and resident in Ocean Park. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2- PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life in our neighborhood. Respectfully, Stephanie Lowe From: Marchelle L.Coleman To: Marchelle L.Coleman Subject: RN: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Friday,June 4,2021 11:11:09 AM Original Message From:DRK iMac<dkinzig@cox.net> Sent:Monday,June 1,2020 12:52 PM To:Bob M.Dyer<BDyer@vbgov.com>;Mark E.Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com>;William R.Landfair <WLandfair@vbgov.com>;dredmondvbpc@icloud.com;Louis R.Jones<LRJones@vbgov.com>;James L.Wood <JLWood@vbgov.com> Subject:Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Dennis Kinzig and I am Ocean Park homeowner.I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Dennis Kinzig 3820 Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach,VA 23455 email: dkinzig@cox.net From: KAROLE L BURRIS To: Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCa)icloud.com Subject: RE: Rezoning Marlin Bay Apartments Shore Drive/Ocean Park Area Date: Friday,June 5,2020 4:22:41 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon Planning Commission Bayside District 4, I am an home owner in the Ocean Park neighborhood. I wanted to write to you in opposition of the potential rezoning and build of apartment complex in the Ocean Park area. I oppose the developer's request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive/Marlin Bay from B2-PDH1 to conditional B-4.The proposed number of apartment units is a high number and recently there have already been new developments of condos just past that location as well as new homes on Chesterfield and other areas within Ocean Park that have increased the per capita of the neighborhood. The more recent developments are more aligned to the community without negatively impacting the area unlike the proposed apartment complex. The close proximity of Pleasure House Point and the Brock Center environmental area could be negatively impacted by the population increase and an Environmental Study should be performed to ensure this natural area is preserved and protected. The increase of traffic and car parking would be a negative impact as well as there are current struggles already within this area as many people from other neighborhoods park in the Ocean Park residential areas to go to the beach, many park to utilize the paths on the preserve, and many park for boating and kayaking.The Lynnhaven boat ramp at the corner of the Lesner bride by Piedmont Circle draws a high volume of traffic and cars parked throughout the neighborhood. The safety of the citizens living in this area could be impacted as the emergency response times could be decreased as a strain is placed on the Emergency Services in the area with a higher number of people. Another safety consideration for the citizens are the already high volume of tragic injuries and deaths related from Shore Drive traffic accidents involving pedestrians and runners in the neighborhood. Overall,the request is not in line with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life in Ocean Park. Developments more in line with other recent developments would be better suited to the community and quality of life established in Ocean Park. Thank you for your time and allowing me to note my opposition to this matter. Sincerely, Karole Burris Ocean Park Homeowner Chesterfield Ave 757-508-4100 Work Email klkentPsentara.com Disclaimer: This electronic message and its contents and attachments contain information from Sentara Healthcare and is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The information is intended to be for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error,please notify us immediately and destroy the original message and all copies. From: Stacey Shiflet To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(aicloud.com;aalcarazvbocCo�icloud.com; warahamvboc( icloud.com; horslev don(&vahoo.com;mainman(alinmanstrickler,com;branch.oliver(agmail.com; iohnhcoston a(�amail.com; rkleinvbocC@icloud.com;ickwaMaol.com;dweiner(albatchelderbrick.com;Louis R. )ones;James L.Wood;tanklinesaol.com;aversmoraaraamail.com;fchristie3Cacox.net;walkatdam(a�aol.com; pdavenoort9ecox.net;aeefaisonCaamail.com•whearst(ahverizon.net;mthomas2001(olgmail.com;Luke Kohan Subject: Re:Shore Drive Development Date: Friday,June 19,2020 5:48:01 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Luke! Thank you for sending the email regarding Marlin Bay Apartments rezoning. We have not met since February and our next meeting is July where we will hear a presentation of this project. We have received information from Mark Shea with the City of Virginia Beach which I will go over prior to our July meeting. Have a great weekend! -Stacey (757) 513-5954 On Wednesday,June 17,2020, 11:37:56 AM EDT, Luke Kohan <luke.kohan@gmail.com>wrote: I am a home owner in Ocean Park. I oppose the request to rezone Shore Drive at Marlin Bay. I am not opposed to all development but believe any further development should not change the entire character of the area. Luke C Kohan MD From: Stacey Shiflet To: Bob M. Dyer; Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(5icloud.com;galcarazvboc(a�icloud.com; warahamVBPC(5)icloud.com• horslev don(awahoo.com;mainman(a5inmanstrickler.com;branch.oliverCa�gmail.com; i hntrr RKIeinVBPCna icloud.com;jckwallCa aol.com;dweiner(aabatchelderbrick.com;Louis R. Jones;James L.Wood;tanklinesCa aol.com;aversmoraaraamail.com;Fchristie3(5cox.net;walkatdamCa�aol.com; Pdavenoort9(acox.net; aeefaisonCoamail.com;whearstnaverizon.net;Sshiflet35Cwahoo.com; Mthomas2001(@amail.com; Dave Unger Subject: Re:Strongly oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment plan as oversized and incongruent with the area Date: Friday,June 19,2020 5:49:04 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi David! Thank you for sending the email regarding Marlin Bay Apartments rezoning. We have not met since February and our next meeting is July where we will hear a presentation of this project. We have received information from Mark Shea with the City of Virginia Beach which I will go over prior to our July meeting. Have a great weekend! —Stacey (757) 513-5954 On Sunday, June 14, 2020, 03:38:29 PM EDT, Dave Unger<djuras@sbcglobal.net>wrote: Hi, my name David Unger and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. I would never have bought a home in this area had I known the city would consider such an unwarranted, oversized rezoning. Please do not support such drastic overdevelopment. If not now, when social distancing has become an important way of life, will zoning bodies and developers learn to adopt to the future of providing people appropriate space and density. Respectfully David Unger Marchelle L. Coleman From: isabellericks19@gmail.com Sent: Monday,June 8, 2020 7:19 PM To: Bob M. Dyer; Mark E. Shea;William R. Landfair; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; Louis R.Jones;James L. Wood Subject: Reasoning for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello all, I am a homeowner in Aeries on the Bay and I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH - 1 to conditional B4. Thank you Mrs. I Ricks Sent from my iPhone 1 Marchelle L. Coleman From: Jim Palmer <jwpalmer96@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 3:46 PM To: Andrew Broyles Subject: Request to increase density and rezone CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Jim Palmer and I'm an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. JP 1 Marchelle L. Coleman From: Perry Caudill <perrycaudill@earthlink.net> Sent: Saturday,June 6, 2020 6:34 PM To: Bob M. Dyer; Mark E. Shea;William R. Landfair; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; Louis R.Jones;James L. Wood Subject: Rezoning - Marlin Bay Apartements CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing today to oppose the request for increased density and rezoning for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments at the corner of Shore Drive& Marlin Bay. Rezoning is being requested from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. It is unrealistic to oppose all development, but I would like to encourage you to oppose this change so that we can protect the neighborhoods' density, property values and thus the city's tax base. I would like to see LESS DENSITY which would allow a HIGHER PRICE POINT per unit,which would help maintain and ultimately increase property values in the surrounding area.As a citizen of Ocean Park, it is very important that I protect the largest investment I will ever make in my lifetime. Will you,as our city officials, please listen to the voices of your constituents, and oppose this change for the good of the neighborhood. Your time and thoughtfulness in this matter is greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Perry Caudill Ocean Park Resident Marchelle L. Coleman From: Jmwessel <jmwessel@cox.net> Sent: Sunday,June 14, 2020 12:59 PM To: William R. Landfair Subject: Rezoning CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is John Wessel and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here." Sent from my iPad 1 Marchelle L. Coleman From: Don Johnson <djohnson@valconmasonry.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:46 PM To: Bob M. Dyer; Mark E. Shea; William R. Landfair; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; Louis R.Jones;James L. Wood Cc: Jean Wheeler Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments - Ocean Park CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Don Johnson and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive & Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to Conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to make sure it is in line with the community and quality of life. Traffic on Shore Drive is already congested, especially with the new crosswalk stoplights, and the beach is already crowded, and now we hear that the sand replenishment is not going to happen! We barely have 10 yards of beach at points at high tide! Thank you for your time! DON RJOHNSON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT %e. VALCON MASONRY 568 Central Drive,Suite 101 Virginia Beach,VA 23454-5293 757.351.3488 p 757.351.3675 f djohnson@valconmasonry.com www.valconmasonry.com ACCREDITED **IV" ' slur B� BUSINESS t r' v . . .. 1 From: Jimmie To: Bob M.Dyer;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(aicloud.com Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments! Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 10:43:11 AM Importance: High CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is James Rightmeyer and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I OPPOSE the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive & Marlin Bay from B2- PDh-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. James Rightmeyer 6/2/2020 From: David Galluch To: Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(o�icloud.com Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 3:53:39 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, We are David And Caroline Galluch.We oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4.I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Respectfully, David&Caroline Galluch Sent from my iPhone From: Sherri To: William R.Landfair Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Monday,June 1,2020 11:02:14 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Landfair, Hello, my name is Sherri Walton. My husband Andrew and I own a home in Ocean Park. We completely oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. We are not opposed to any development but want to insure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. We live in Ocean Park on Shore Drive just over the Lesner Bridge. This is truly the one part if Shore Drive that is 100% a gem of family life. We all are out walking and riding bikes, happily supporting Pleasure House Point. We love the businesses we have in our area now. I email because there is a change in zoning wanted by a developer for rezoning on Marlin Bay and Shore Drive. The current parcel of land is zoned for 36 units per acre which would give the developer 108 units not the 227 he proposes. 108 units would still be a great development for the developer and would give him the chance to get the needed parking in his development. There are already parking issues in the area especially on weekends. The developer did not even plan enough parking for his units. Every unit needs parking for 2 cars plus extra parking for additional bedrooms. The 4 bedroom next to us has 4 cars. This is very typical of every home or condo in our area. There has been no environmental study for determining the impact on Pleasure House Point. Emergency service response for Ocean Park will be great changed. This is truly not in line with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. Sherri and Andrew Walton 3750 Surry Rd Virginia Beach,VA 23455 757-971-1664 From: Linda Kester To: William R.Landfair Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Monday,June 1,2020 5:15:39 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, I am an Ocean Park homeowner of many years. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive & Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development, but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life in Ocean Park. Thank you for your time and consideration of this input. Sincerely, Linda Kester From: Sean Kinq To: Bob M. Dyer; Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(aicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 8:27:03 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Sean King. I am a homeowner in Ocean Park. I have major concerns about the development of the Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive& Marline Bay. The area already suffers from flooding and each new development has made the flooding issue worse. I am opposed to the request to increase the density and rezoning of the apartments from D2-PDH1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but I want to ensure that it is in line with the community and quality of life here. If you would like to talk more about this issue, I am available to chat. Thanks. Sean King From: Austin Madden To: Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(eicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;)ames L.Wood;bdver(@vb.aov Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 11:33:31 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello my name is Austin Madden,I am an Ocean Park homeowner and oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development, I would rather see mixed use residential/retail. The amount of units they want to put there would negatively affect the quality of life in our neighborhood.The amount of traffic,on street parking, and the building of a parking garage with nowhere near the needed number of parking spots for their residents will turn Marlin Bay Drive into a parking lot. vr, Austin Madden 757-651-4743 • From: rjones3731Cahcox.net To: Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocf icloud.com;Bob M.Dye( Cc: Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 12:54:16 PM AUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Richard Jones and I and my wife Bonnie are Ocean Park homeowners. We strongly oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2- PDH-1 to conditional B-4. We are not opposed to all development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. If 108 units is not enough for the developer then let them go somewhere with more open space. From: Jean Wheeler To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCalicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 12:55:11 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon gentleman, I am corresponding to you in regards to the developers request for increased density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay. As a home owner in Ocean Park, I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for the Marlin Bay Apartments from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4 for the following reasons. • What would be the environmental impact on Please House Point? • In accordance with the Shore Drive overlay, a parcel of 4 acres or more can have 36 units per acre which is 108, not 227. • Parking spillage likely on to Marlin Dr and surrounding neighborhoods. • This apartment complex is not in line with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan. • Emergency service response serving Ocean Park, would be greatly impacted. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jean Wheeler 3990 W Stratford Rd, Virginia Beach, VA 23455 cell 871-8152 jean wheeler1013(&gmail.com From: allliefiveeiahtone To: Bob M.Dyer Cc: Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocCalicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 9:47:04 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi,my name is Aleksandra Poetek and I am a an Ocean Park homeowner.I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2-PHD-1 to conditional B-4.I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you, Alex From: Larry To: William R.Landfair Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 1:26:15 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Lawrence Kester and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments on the corner of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Regards, Lawrence Kester From: Patrick Bonar Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 9:30:18 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, My name is Patrick Bonar. and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. If this rezoning is approved, I will tell you that you can expect me and my family who also live off of Shore Drive,very close by,to attend any and all public meetings related to this rezoning and development,and we will voice our opposition loudly. I would be happy to discuss this issue further with you in person if you are actually open to the perspective of a homeowner who lives near the proposed site. My address is 3818 Marlin Bay Court,I access Shore Drive on the same intersection that the proposed development would be built upon. I look forward to an open and honest discussion on this issue. I want to reiterate that I am not opposed to all possible development on this site, or anywhere for that matter. I want my neighborhood to be upscale,classy and respectable. I would only like to voice my opinion and concern about this proposition because of the large increase in density(and therefore traffic). Our speed limit has already been lowered, I do not want an additional increase in commute time due to increased local traffic, summer tourist traffic already adds 5-10 minutes to my commute, I cannot imagine an additional 227 units right at the entrance to my neighborhood. Thank you for listening,and I hope you have a nice day. Patrick Bonar, RN, CEN pcbonar@gmail.com (c) 757-647-3880 From: Cvndi OGradv To: William R.Landfair Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Thursday,June 4,2020 10:42:36 AM LCAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr Landfair, My name is Cynthia O'Grady and I am an Ocean Park homeowner and resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay, from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to development however, I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Cynthia O'Grady From: Lindsay Oliver To: J3ob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(aicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Tuesday,June 9,2020 2:31:44 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi my name is Lindsay Oliver and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive &Marlin Bay from B2- PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you, Lindsay Oliver Lindsay Oliver 718.812.1827 From: Michael Gazzolo To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbod icloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Thursday,June 11,2020 8:47:09 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, My Name Is Michael Gazzolo and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Michael Gazzolo From: Sean Moronev To: Bob M.Dyer;dredmondvbociP icloud.com;James L.Wood;Louis R,Jones;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Date: Monday,June 15,2020 12:50:47 PM !CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello all, My name is Sean and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development,but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. V/r Sean Moroney From: Camille Overton To: William R.Landfair Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments/Ocean Park Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 4:36:14 PM Importance: High CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments —1 unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Bill Landfair: Hi, my name is Mr. Robert L.Curry and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2- PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you , Mr. Robert L. Curry From: Camille Overton To: William R.Landfair Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments/Ocean Park Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 5:02:19 PM Importance: High CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Bill Landfair: Hi, my name is Camille Overton and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Thank you , Mrs. Camille Overton From: Lynn&Markus Tavenner To: William R.Landfair Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive Date: Monday,June 1,2020 8:19:51 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Lynn Tavenner and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive& Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-I to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. From: Brandon Duvall To: Doti M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvocCalicloud.com;Louis R.Jones;James L.Wood Subject: REZONING FOR MARLIN BAY APT. Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 1:14:36 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Brandon Duvall and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. From: Al Keith To: William R.LandfaiG dredmondvbocCalicloud.com;warahamVBPC(aicloud.conl Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apts Date: Tuesday,May 26,2020 1:13:40 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. "Hi, my name is Al Keith and I am an Ocean Park (resident, homeowner, business owner). I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here." AJK 3736 Dupont Circle Virginia Bch VA 23455 All e-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to NC Public Records Law, which may result in monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including law enforcement. From: Jeff Floyd To: Doh M.Dyer;dredmondvbocCo icloud.com;James L.Wood;Louis R.Jones; Mark E.Shea; William R.Landfair Cc: Michelle Floyd;communication(a�oocl,orq Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Date: Thursday,June 18,2020 5:53:17 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello,my name is Jeff Floyd. I am an Ocean Park homeowner and President of an Ocean Park COA(Bar Harbor Condominiums). I treasure the high quality of life and recreational opportunities that this neighborhood provides to existing residents and visitors alike. High traffic volume and scarcity of parking are already problematic within Ocean Park. As I suspect many of you are aware, Ocean Park along with Pleasure House Point natural area,is a popular recreational destination for locals and tourists alike. Walking,biking,birding,boating, fishing, swimming and dining are enjoyed by residents, local and non-local visitors. If 227 apartments are permitted and constructed at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay, I fear that the current Ocean Park environment and experience will be degraded for all. I assume that thoughtful and strategic urban planning policy and process from the City of Virginia Beach's elected officials and professional staff are the norm. As related to Marlin Bay apartments,what consideration has been given to protect the interests of current property owners and residents?And what actions are planned to be sure ample(and balanced)public access to a very desirable part of the city continues? Considering that a 227-unit apartment complex will require rezoning,and will result in an additional 500-600 residents and maybe 400 cars... What due diligence is underway to assess impacts to infrastructure,public services and environment?What investments are planned by the developer and/or the City of Virginia Beach to mitigate impacts found in due diligence?How will this investment be funded? What are the long-term benefits envisioned as a result of constructing the Marlin Bay apartments? How do the Marlin Bay plans and vision align with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan? There are numerous recent red flags that even the current neighborhood density and visitor combination are proving too much.A few examples are 1)the disastrous Memorial Day 2019 "Floatilla" 2)routine traffic jams in the neighborhood due to reduced parking capacity at the public boat ramp 3) litter and crowded trails within PHP and 4)numerous pedestrian deaths over the years. I assure you that I am not a NIMBY-type. I am a fmance executive at a large construction firm. I am very familiar with the development and construction process in both the public and commercial spaces. The questions posed and concerns I've shared are legitimate and I look forward to informative and thoughtful responses. Best Regards, Jeffrey K. Floyd S617Z-£L£-LSL SSt£Z VA tiO10g uiutaJIA iCurn J°LIigH Jug Z I 9E From: Mike Skowronskl To: Mark E.Shea;Bob M.Dyer;dredmondvbocC)idoud.com;James L.Wood;Louis R.Jones;William R.Landfair Subject: Rezoning for Marlon bay apartments Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 4:41:06 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, My name is Mike Skowronski, and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2- PDH -1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. The Shore Drive Overlay max of 36 Units per Acre shall never be exceeded. The impact to PHP shall be studied and published. Parking shall be planned as to not impact Marlin Bay. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. Sincerely, Mike Skowronski From: cliff/kathv To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocPicloud.conl;Louis R.Jones;dames L.Wood Subject: Rezoning Marlin Bay Date: Sunday,May 31,2020 1:40:12 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, My name is Kathy Moore and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life we currently have as a resident of Ocean Park. Sincerely, Kathy From: Grant Simmons To: William R.Landfair Subject: Rezoning Request for Development of Apartments in Ocean Park Date: Tuesday,July 14,2020 3:33:36 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr Landfair I am an Ocean Park homeowner living on Jefferson Blvd in the 23455 zip code. I read extensively about the proposed request to rezone and increase density to accommodate the Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay. As someone that frequently crosses and drives along Shore Dr I am 100% against increasing the pressure on this street with the proposed plan for this apartment building's associated traffic and pedestrian headaches. The 'trail' the developer proposes feels more insulting than an actual effort to improve the area, and appears to be more of a sound &visual barrier for the complex than a genuine gesture as their presentation suggests. I am not opposed to all development and the current boat trailer storage is somewhat of an eyesore, but surely there are better options than to give 'carte blanche' to an obvious aggravated traffic and population worry for this amazing area of the city. The traffic impact study conducted in March was potentially impacted by reduced traffic due to COVID, and does not consider the new light along Shore Dr which has caused a decrease in fluid traffic flow. On busy days in the summer, during normal work conditions, Shore Dr. Is bumper to bumper. I find it incredulous to believe the TIS does not recognize this issue nor communicate a concern of an additional (potential)400 vehicles at rush hour. Virginia Beach city projects a great mix of hospitality, entertainment, beach community and great quality of life. I feel this development as proposed will tarnish this unique neighborhood creating far more problems than it solves, creating additional traffic issues, beach congestion and pedestrian safety concerns without providing anything back to the community it professes to respect. Sincerely Grant Simmons Resident, Ocean Park, VA From: Anne Shewan To: Bob M.Dyer Subject: rezoning request Date: Friday,June 5,2020 12:28:53 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, My name is Anne Shewan and I am a homeowner in Aeries on the Bay, part of the Ocean Park area. I firmly oppose the request to increase density and rezone the area by Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. I believe that the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments would have a significantly negative impact on our area. Please do not grant the developer's request to rezone the area. I am very concerned about the traffic impact. In the summer we already have difficulty with parking. I believe some of that is to be expected living by the the Chesapeake Bay. However, if I can't leave my house because of the fear I will lose my on street parking spot, then that is no way to live. The safest thing to do is to deny the zoning request. Thank you for considering my thoughts. Anne Shewan 2336 Purple Martin Ln From: Vivian Rome To: William R.Landfair Subject: rezoning Date: Thursday,June 4,2020 9:39:35 AM !CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments i unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Landfair, My name is Vivian Rome. I live at 3844 Surry Road in Ocean Park. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B- 4. I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. The increased traffic and density will create many problems on Shore Drive and in the surrounding Ocean Park neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Vivian Rome 3844 Surry Road Virginia Beach, VA 23455 804-539-8569 From: rosemary curtis To: Pub M.Dyer Cc: Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;jaonesC@vbgov,com;)ames L.Wood Subject: rezoningfor marlin bay apts Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 7:38:34 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a homeowner in Ocean Park. I oppose the increase density and rezoning for marlin Bay apts. I think The Pearl apts will increase the population in our corridor to its maximum. Please quit over building in our area, Sincerely, Rosemary Curtis 757-735-3450 From: dhrelic(@aol.com To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;clredmondvboc(@icloud.com;aalcarazvboc(@icloud.com; warahamVBPC(a)icloud.com;Jiorsley don(@vahoo.com;mainman(a�inmanstrickler.com•branch.oliverCaamail.com; johnhcoston(&gmail.com;RKIeinVBPC()icloud.com;jckwall(a)aol.com;dweinerCa�batchelderbrick.com;Louis R, )ones.;James L.Wood;tanklines )aol.com;aversmoraan(@amail.com;Fchristie3(acox.net;walkatdamaol.com; Pdavenaort9(acox.net;aeefaison(aamail.com;whearstCahverizon.net;Sshiflet35(@vahoo.com; Mthomas2001(Tamail.com Subject: Shore Dr/Martin Bay rezoning Date: Thursday,June 18,2020 2:31:04 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Darko Hrelic and I am an Ocean Park resident. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development but want to ensure that it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Late Spring / Summer/ early Fall congestion is already a challenge - all future development should be done very thoughtfully to ensure environmental balance and integrity of the area. A rezone simply takes things too far and is quite frankly greedy for the few at the expense of so many existing residents, nature and the environment in the area. Thank you. dh From: Luke Kohan To: Bob M.Dyer;Mark E.Shea;William R.Landfair;dredmondvbocC@icloud.com;aalcarazvboc(uicloud.com; warahamVBPC(nicloud.corn;horsley don(avahoo.com;mainman(@inmanstrickler.com;branch.oliver(@gmail.com; johnhcostoraamail.com;RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwalI(@aol.com;dweinerfo)batchelderbrick.com;Louis R. )ones;James L.Wood;tanklines(alaol.com;aversmoraan(aamail.com; Fchristie3(ahcox.net;walkatdamCa�aol.com; Pdavenoort9(@cox,net;aeefaison(a�amail.com;whearsteverizon.net;Sshiflet35()vahoo.com; Mthomas2001amai I.com Subject: Shore Drive Development Date: Wednesday,June 17,2020 11:37:59 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a home owner in Ocean Park.I oppose the request to rezone Shore Drive at Marlin Bay.I am not opposed to all development but believe any further development should not change the entire character of the area. Luke C Kohan MD From: tidie_M 1(WI To: William R.Landfair;dredmondvboc(alicloud.com;Mark E.Shea;gob M.Dyer Subject: Shore Dr.and Marlin Bay Date: Thursday,May 28,2020 11:24:42 AM LCAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Officials, My name is Julie McLean, and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. Specifically, I am concerned about environmental impacts (flooding and taking away even more habitat from local wildlife), added traffic, and parking concerns. Kind regards, Julie From: Ana de Oliveira To: William R.Landfair Subject: Shore Drive Date: Tuesday,June 2,2020 8:01:52 AM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello my name is Ana de Oliveira and I an an Ocean Park(homeowner,resident and business person). I oppose the request to increase density and zoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin By from B2-PDH1 conditional B-4.I am not opposed to any development but want to ensure it is in line with the community quality of life here which I believe will be greatly affected by renter with no personal investment in the neighborhood. Regards Ana de Oliveira (757)270-1153 From: Dave Unaer To: Bob M,Dyer;Mark E.Shed;William R.Landfall;dredmondvbocicloud.com;aalcarazvboc(o�icloud.com; warahamVBPCCalicloud.com;horslev don(@vahoo.com;mainman(@inmanstrickler.com;branch.oliverCalamaiLcom; johnhcoston(a�amail.com;RKIeinVBPC(a�icloud.com;ickwall(aaol,com;dweiner(@batchelderbrick.com;Louis R )ones;)ames L.Wood;tanklinesCla aol.comn;aversmoraan(alamail.com;Fchristie3(@cox.net;walkatdamaol,com; Pdavenoort9(&cox.net;aeefaison(@gmail.coml;whearst(a�verizon.net;Sshiflet35(Tvahoo.corn; Mthomas2001Co�amail.corn Subject: Strongly oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment plan as oversized and incongruent with the area Date: Sunday,June 14,2020 3:38:31 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name David Unger and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH 1 to conditional B4. I am not opposed to all development but I want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here. I would never have bought a home in this area had I known the city would consider such an unwarranted, oversized rezoning. Please do not support such drastic overdevelopment. If not now, when social distancing has become an important way of life,will zoning bodies and developers learn to adopt to the future of providing people appropriate space and density. Respectfully David Unger To: Mr. Dao From: Dennis Kinzig Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Date: May 20, 2001 I am writing to respectfully request you recommend denying the proposed rezoning proposal coming before the Planning Commission. I'm sure you have heard all the arguments against this proposal. As a resident of Ocean Park, I am definitely opposed. The following are some of my reasons: This project: Not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan Not in compliance with Shore Drive Corridor Plan Not allowed with current Zoning restrictions Not approved by the Bayfront Advisory Commission Not in compliance with the provisions of the Pleasure House Point Natural Area Comprehensive Plan previously approved All of these plans listed above were put in place to specifically protect development in the Ocean Park neighborhood. Approving this new proposal stands in opposition to all of these intended protections. We've purchased our homes here because it is a special neighborhood,as you know,and with the understanding that Virginia Beach officials would continue to maintain the character it represents. We pay higher taxes for the privilege to live here which are used to pay the salaries of city officials we trust will preserve it. And we vote for representatives whom we presume will protect our families and our investment. The area is already been adversely impacted with major traffic increases(which last few weeks included a fatal accident at his very corner) and accidents. Shore Drive speed limit though frequently ignored) has already been reduced to 35 mph for a four-lane road given dense and unsafe driving. Parking violations on residential streets continue for people seeking close beach access. Behavior of increased pedestrian crowds on streets near or approaching beaches becomes cruder and more disrespectful (reminiscent of"Floatopia"crowd a couple years ago). A development of this size and scope is definitely not what we expected when bought our property in Ocean Park. It is also not allowed by cities own zoning laws. Please support us in this effort to deny these changes and this project. Thank you. Sincerely, Dennis R. Kinzig 3820 Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach,VA 23455 Board of Directors: President: Danny Murphy / *61Vice President:Andrea Lindemann Ocean Park Civic League Treasurer:Blake Norris P.O. Box 55385 Secretary:Betty Demers .�L Past President:Ryan Cochran `� Virginia Beach VA 23471 North Side Rep:Susan Lawson •¢'' www.opcl.org South Side Rep:Brian Snyder C I V I C 4L I E A G U E At-Large Rep: Don Caskie At-Large Rep:Jill Doczi May 26, 2021 Mr. Hoa Dao Current Planning Manager/Planning Evaluation Coordinator 2875 Sabre ST, Suite 500 Virginia Beach,VA 23452 Mr. Dao, I am writing on behalf of the Ocean Park Civic League and the community it serves to ask that you and the Planning Department not recommend approval of the applicant's(MP Shore,LLC) conditional change of zoning(B-2 and PD-H1 Districts to Conditional B-4 Mixed Use District) and conditional use permitting(Multi-Family Dwellings),commonly referred to as the"Marlin Bay Apartment Development"and located at the corner of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. Multiple-family residences tend to be clustered together in large developments near other dense- land spaces, and not in small, long-established neighborhoods,making such a proposed plan incongruent with the limited footprint that exists within Ocean Park. The historic Ocean Park neighborhood is composed of duplexes,townhouses and single-family homes. We have no large multifamily development in the heart of Ocean Park. The scaling,massing and density of this development does not fit into the historic, single-family neighborhood of Ocean Park. The proposed apartment complex has 197 units,which averages 31.77 units per acre,more than double the density of any recent Ocean Park development or any adjacent properties. The proposed plan for this site is not consistent with a key priority and goal stated in the City of Virginia Beach Department of Housing&Neighborhood Preservation's Consolidated Strategic Plan for 2020-2025. In that plan,the VBDHNP states one of their key goals is to"Preserve and enhance the quality and livability of the City's housing stock and neighborhoods." Simply stated, a multiple-family residence would injure the character and quality of the historic Ocean Park neighborhood. As with all development within the City, it is subject to the City of Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan,Policy Document adopted May 17th,2016 and specifically these lots reside within the designated Suburban Focus Areas(SFAs), Shore Drive Corridor.As such,the stated guidance is as follows: The planning policies that apply to the entire Shore Drive Corridor and Bayfront Communities are: •Preserve and protect the character of the established neighborhoods; •Improve land use compatibilities and avoid over-commercialization to insure that resort-based uses complement rather than dominate this corridor; •Achieve the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses; Other recent approved projects in Ocean Park strongly reflect this guidance from the Comprehensive Plan. For example,the Staff Planner Recommendation for a recent project on Shore Dr. (3746, 3744 Shore Dr.) began with this: "The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for Suburban Focus Area 1- Shore Drive Corridor by promoting compatible infill development at a density compatible to the surrounding area. The residential density of the proposed eight-unit development is 14.29 per acre."This development is only several hundred feet from the current property. Another recent project on Shore Dr. at 3739 Shore Dr.,which is similarly close to the Marlin Bay property, included this statement from the Staff Planner: "Planning policies that apply to this request include ... avoiding over- commercialization, preserving and protecting the character of the established neighborhoods and achieving the lowest reasonable density for future uses. (1-70-1-71). This project is the antithesis of those statements. The developers are requesting a rezoning to B-4 mixed and conditional use permitting; this zoning type is intended for mixed-use retail and housing. Simply stated: "The purpose of the B-4 Mixed Use District is to provide for retail and commercial service facilities and residential uses in those areas of the city where a mixture of such uses is desirable and recommended by the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. " The inclusion of an existing retail boat sales business makes the zoning change possible, but this retail is not `integrated' into the Marlin Bay Apartment project as specified in the zoning language-as evident by the intervening roadway between the new construction residential building and existing commercial building as depicted in the developers site drawings. As defined by the City of Virginia Beach code (Virginia Beach,Virginia- Code of Ordinances APPENDIX A -ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE 1. -GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 111. - Definitions.: "Mixed use. Two (2) or more separate uses allowed as principal or conditional uses that are physically and functionally integrated with the same structure on one (1) zoning lot: " Additionally,the inclusion of proffers to negate any further residential development of the existing commercial lot does not preclude such events in the future as recently transacted by the Marina Shores Apartment Expansion and approved by the City Council. Other recent projects within the community have been rezoned to B-4, but at much lower density: 14.29 apartments per acre, not 31.77 per acre or the de facto 46 per acre as outlined within the Marlin Bay development proposal. These other rezoned lots have been rezoned from B-2 (retail)to B4 (mixed use), not PDH1-to B-4. Furthermore, it CRITICAL to see this project for what it really is! Without the inclusion of the non-conforming existing commercial lot,the scope and density are in reality 197 units on approximately 4 acres at the astounding density of 46 units per acre. While we are not opposed to appropriate development on these lots, we have significant concerns regarding the improper rezoning and conditional use permitting. It would allow for permanent and precedent setting development of high-density multiple-family residences destroying the nature and character of the community. This is particularly alarming because these lots sit adjacent to the City's crown jewel,Pleasurehouse Point Natural Area. The city owned natural area,118 acres of water,tidal marsh, sandy shores and maritime forest,has been preserved as one of the largest undeveloped parcels of land on the Lynnhaven River. Furthermore,the Comprehensive Plan provides granular guidance for any development: This Suburban Focus Area has three sub-areas that, due to unique issues and/or opportunities, require further guidance. The following sections provide specific planning guidance for each. SFA 1.1—PLEASURE HOUSE POINT •Ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point. The Ocean Park Civic League has and hopes to continue working with the owners and developers to find an appropriate use for these lots.After our only meeting with the developers and subsequent feedback,the plans were revised to lower only part of one wing to 3 stories on Shore Drive frontage. The larger 4 story residence and 4.5 story parking garage still tower over the adjacent Mariners Landing town homes. Unfortunately,the gap between a reasonable accommodation and the plans submitted remains far too wide. Mr. Dao, on behalf of the Ocean Park Civic League, and the vast majority of the Ocean Park community, I am asking you to RECOMMEND AGAINST the Marlin Bay Apartment proposal zoning request. Our residents have spoken out against this as a community time and again-most recently at the Bayfront Advisory Commission,in which the BAC board members denied the developers support for their proposal to build in Ocean Park. In addition,the Shore Drive Community Coalition unanimously adopted a resolution to oppose the project. We are confident you understand and agree with our significant concerns about this proposed rezoning and conditional use permitting and ask you to honor the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Shore Drive Corridor Plan Specifically Shore Drive Corridor SFA by recommending against this zoning request by the Marlin Bay developers on June 9th. Very respectfully, Danny Murphy,President Ocean Park Civic League Cc: Mr.George Alcaraz Mr. Steve Barnes Mr.Whitney Graham Mr.Donald Horsley Mr.Michael Inman Ms.Dee Oliver Mr.David S.Redmond Mr.John H.Coston Ms.Robyn R.Klein Mr.Jack Wall Mr.David Weiner Hoa N. Dao From: Carly Swift <dr.cswift@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 24,2021 2:28 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Ocean park resident and shore drive business owner Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I wanted to start the conversation about the Marlin Bay Apartments that is being proposed by the Peterson Developers for the Mckleskey and Browning family. It has not been presented to planning yet. As a community we support development that fits with the Shore Drive Plan.And our community in Ocean Park are single family homes or townhomes and we would like to support that same type of development. Not only is an apartment complex not congruent with our community it is not what can be zoned in that lot.This would require a zoning change which is what our community opposes.We would like you to support us in opposing the rezoning and asking the developers to come up with a plan that is congruent with our neighborhood and within the current zoning. Thank you, Dr. Carly Swift Dr. Carly Swift Wave Of Life Chiropractic Center 4640 Shore Dr.Ste 108 Virginia Beach,VA 23455 757-321-7776 Wave of Life website LIKE US on FACEBOOK! "Dedicated to transforming Virginia Beach into a community of health& vitality." The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.Any review,retransmission,dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the original sender's prior written consent. This e-mail is for general informational purposes only and of itself creates no obligations on the part of the sender or sender's affiliates. 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Hans Meijer <hans.meijer@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 9:43 AM To: Hoa N. Dao; pjmeijer3@gmail.com Subject: Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, Please consider my opposition to the Marlin Bay Development. Wth good reason,we have existing zoning and city planning guidelines that include townhouses, duplexes, and single-family homes. I oppose rezoning the property for high-density family homes. Virginia Beach is over-crowded already. Thank you Hans Meijer 4324 Lookout Rd Virginia Beach, VA 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Reid F. Baker <reidfbaker@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 8:40 AM To: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder- brick.com; Hoa N. Dao Subject: Build Homes, Not Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom it May Concern: Yesterday, a flyer was placed throughout our neighborhood highlighting benefits of the proposed apartment complex for Marlin Bay. Let us be very clear, many of those same benefits could also be accomplished through the building of more townhomes. We are not against a development of the proposed site. We are opposed to a large scale apartment complex. Currently,there is a massive housing shortage (more than 4 million in our country). Let's have developers build more homes for our community members, which citizens want more of. Look at the 6 duplexes that were recently built on Chesterfield. More than $3 million dollars worth of property was sold very quickly and didn't detract from the neighborhood vibe that we desperately do not want to lose. Thank you for your time. Reid Baker Sent from my iPhone On May 26, 2021, at 5:36 PM, The Mid-Atlantic<reidfbaker@gmail.com>wrote: Mr. Dao, As a 10-year resident of Ocean Tides Drive, and in very close proximity to the proposed Marlin Bay apartment development, I am writing to ask for your support in opposing the proposed rezoning and development at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B-2/PDH-1 to a conditional B-4 zone. While I am not opposed to all future development on this site, I do have significant concerns regarding the type of rezoning being proposed for the Marlin Bay development: • This type of apartment complex does not fit into the historic neighborhood of single family homes, duplexes, and townhomes that is Ocean Park • Large apartment complexes are clustered together near other dense-land spaces, not in small, long-established neighborhoods, making such a proposed plan incongruent with the limited footprint that exists within Ocean Park 1 • Once the property is rezoned, the developers could further develop the property. The parcels are not under one ownership. If the Boat Sale parcel segregates itself, it could be redeveloped as a separate parcel. • My opposition is also based on these probable negative effects: o the loss of neighborhood and community character I have enjoyed for over 20 years o a decrease in the market value of my home O overcrowding on our neighboring Chesapeake Bay beach which is already very narrow o increased traffic congestion, adding to an already dangerous Shore Drive corridor I appreciate your support of local voices in preserving our community. Very respectfully, Reid Baker Ocean Park resident of Ocean Tides Drive 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Robert Frey <susanfrey@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 8:14 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, As a long-time resident of the Great Neck area, it concerns me greatly to learn of this proposed development. This would change the character of Ocean Park and negatively impact the whole area. I encourage you to stop this project. Sincerely, Susan Frey 1 Hoa N. Dao From: D Cohen <djcohen.pgh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:54 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: ogi T Subject: Opposition to Marlin Bay Apartment Development Rezoning and Potential Development Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, We are emailing you to tell you that we oppose rezoning and the current planned development of the property at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. We agree with Ocean Park Civic League's position and concerns with rezoning and subsequent development of the property with a very high density large, multi-story apartment complex. We moved to Ocean Park approximately 4 years ago because we fell in love with Shore Drive and the special features of Ocean Park neighborhood and Pleasure House Point Natural Area. Ocean Park is a small community with a wonderful neighborhood feeling with mostly duplexes,townhouses, and single-family homes-although crossing Shore Drive can be a challenge (many cars and cars going too fast), we love being able to walk to the beach on the Bay and walking in our neighborhood. Our greatest concern with rezoning and the proposed apartment complex is that it will destroy the wonderful features of our neighborhood by building a large apartment building with too many units, adding too many people to a small area. We think the property should not be rezoned and that any development should be consistent with a low density goal for this area and that is complementary with the neighborhood and nearby Pleasure House Point Natural Area. We plan to attend the June 9 Planning Commission meeting to stand with Ocean Park Civic League in our opposition to rezoning and planned apartment complex. Deborah Cohen and Tetsuo Ogiwara 3757 Pendleton Avenue 412-915-3232 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Ruth Meijer <ruth.meijer7@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:41 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTIO!. This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, I oppose the Marlin Bay Development. It should be developed in accordance with the existing zoning and city planning guidelines to include townhouses, duplexes and single family homes. I oppose rezoning the property for high-density family homes. We believe the massive scale of the development will fundamentally change the character of our neighborhood. We also believe it will set a terrible precedent by allowing the development of an inappropriately high-density complex which could open the door for more similar projects in the future. Sincerely, Ruth Meijer 1 Hoa N. Dao From: princessnorrisl <princessnorrisl @cox.net> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:40 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Ocean Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Mr Dao Staff Planner VB From: Princess Norris 3806 Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach, VA 23455 Mr. Dao, We oppose the development of the Marlin Bay project on Shore Dr. The high density housing will compromise the integrity and security of our neighborhood. Our beaches are already overcrowded and losing ground due to erosion. The warmer quality in our bay will be negatively impacted due to run off and increased activity around our marshes and watershed. Please vote NO to Marlin Bay project. Respectfully, Princess Norris Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Paige Meijer <pjmeijer3@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:10 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, I oppose the Marlin Bay Development. It should be developed in accordance with the existing zoning and city planning guidelines to include townhouses,duplexes and single family homes. I oppose rezoning the property for high-density family homes. We believe the massive scale of the development will fundamentally change the character of our neighborhood. We also believe it will set a terrible precedent by allowing the development of an inappropriately high-density complex which could open the door for more similar projects in the future. Thank you Paige. Hoa N. Dao From: Patsy Hassell <seafeasts4u@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 9:42 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I C/uv i+ v This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao: As a long time resident and previous business owner in Ocean Park, I appeal to you to vote NO to the proposed zoning change and approval of Marlin Bay Apartment Development. The magnitude of this development would not be cohesive with the current neighborhood and would have a negative impact on the community. Respectfully, Patricia Hassell-Garris Namaste A 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Blake Norris <vbnors@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 6:58 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: princessnorrisl @cox.net Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Zoning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I'm writing you to support a NO VOTE to the conditional rezoning of two properties that would encourage support for the Marlin Bay apartment projects high density. There's something inherently wrong with a plan that allows an adjacent property to be used as leverage for the property next door to get higher density as in the case of Marlin Bay Apartments. What does the Lynnhaven Marine property really have to do with the project? I'm sure there's something going on behind the curtain. I'm not against an apartment complex, but this project goes against what our city leaders have committed too in terms of protecting our neighborhoods from higher density housing. I just hope the Planning Commission votes based on what they know is right, which is a NO VOTE to the proposal currently on the table for Marlin Bay Apartments. Blake Norris 3806 Jefferson Blvd Hoa N. Dao From: The Mid-Atlantic <reidfbaker@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 5:37 PM To: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder- brick.com; Hoa N. Dao Subject: No to Zoning Changes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, As a 10-year resident of Ocean Tides Drive, and in very close proximity to the proposed Marlin Bay apartment development, I am writing to ask for your support in opposing the proposed rezoning and development at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B-2/PDH-1 to a conditional B-4 zone. While I am not opposed to all future development on this site, I do have significant concerns regarding the type of rezoning being proposed for the Marlin Bay development: •This type of apartment complex does not fit into the historic neighborhood of single family homes, duplexes, and townhomes that is Ocean Park •Large apartment complexes are clustered together near other dense-land spaces, not in small, long- established neighborhoods, making such a proposed plan incongruent with the limited footprint that exists within Ocean Park •Once the property is rezoned, the developers could further develop the property. The parcels are not under one ownership. If the Boat Sale parcel segregates itself, it could be redeveloped as a separate parcel. • My opposition is also based on these probable negative effects: othe loss of neighborhood and community character I have enjoyed for over 20 years oa decrease in the market value of my home oovercrowding on our neighboring Chesapeake Bay beach which is already very narrow oincreased traffic congestion, adding to an already dangerous Shore Drive corridor I appreciate your support of local voices in preserving our community. Very respectfully, Reid Baker Ocean Park resident of Ocean Tides Drive Hoa N. Dao From: Mary Hall <mmohelhall@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 2:59 PM To: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamvbpc@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com;johnhcoston@gmail.com; rkleinvbpc@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; Hoa N. Dao Subject: STOP the Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have been a homeowner in Mariners Landing townhomes since November 2000 and strongly disapprove of yet another apartment complex in Virginia Beach off of Shore Drive. Below are the reasons why: -The homes in this area are 2-story with a few 3-story scattered about. The building and 4 1/2 story parking garage will be an eyesore in this area. -This apartment complex has 197 units which averages 31.77 units per acre which is more than double the density of any Ocean Park development and other recent projects have been rezoned to B4, 14.29 apartments per acre. - The residents of the apartment complex will have quests or multiple cars and will park up and down Marlin Bay Drive and within Mariners Landing which will cause parking problems. Right now parking is a problem because of limited parking on the street. We have problems with people parking all through the neighborhood to go to the beach in addition to school busses parking on Marlin Bay. I understand that the Bayfront Advisory Commission did NOT approve of this apartment complex and it IS NOT in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. It just DOES NOT make any sense to approve this apartment complex and will definitely affect our wonderful small neighborhood by causing traffic, parking, stormwater runoff, natural and cultural resources. Please disapprove of this project. Mary Hall 3760 Clipper Bay Drive VB, VA 23455 757-589-5196 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Kristie Weaver <kristielnance@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,June 3, 2021 3:44 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Opposition Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Planning Commission, As a resident of Ocean Park since 2012, I strongly oppose the current planning commission application to change the zoning requirements for the Marlin Bay Apartments project. I and many residents of Ocean Park absolutely want this property to be developed. It has been an eye sore for years due to the neglect of the current owners (who are behind the current proposal and stand to make a lot of money in residual income to the detriment of the residents of Shore Drive). Marlin Bay Apartments is NOT the answer. We need to elevate shore drive, make it desirable, protect our natural resources and take pride in our community along the Chesapeake Bay. There are a multitude of reasons to oppose the Marlin Bay project. 1) The increased vehicular traffic along Shore Drive which is already clogged with traffic- Several years ago the speed limit was decreased to 35 mph due to many unfortunate accidents that occurred along Shore Drive. Now you are being asked to approved an apartment community that would increase vehicular traffic on a heavily travelled road that backs up regularly due to accidents and already puts the lives of Shore Drive residents and visitors at risk. (2) With 197 units the area would be looking at approximately 512 more people (there are on average 2.6 people per residence in VB). If there are 2 cars per unit on average that is 394 more cars!!! (3) The proposed apartment complex averages 31.77 units per acre, more than double the density of any recent Ocean Park development or any adjacent properties. (4) The current lots at the proposed Marlin Bay site are zoned PDH-1 and B-2. The proposed "Conditional Use" change to B-4 Mixed Use zoning is inappropriate, as it is intended for combined retail and housing. The inclusion of an existing retail boat sales business makes the zoning change possible, but this retail is not "integrated" into the project as specified in the zoning language. (5) Other recent projects have been rezoned to B-4, but at a much lower density: 14.29 apartments per acre for example, not 31.77 per acre. These have been rezoned from B2 (retail) to B4 (mixed use), not PDH1 to B4. i (6) This project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. Both plans were adopted by the City Council and specify a goal of LOW DENSITY as a goal for this area. The density of this project assures adverse cascading impacts to traffic, parking, storm water runoff, natural and cultural resources. (7) The Bayfront Advisory Commission, appointed by the City Council, DID NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT. (8) The project would sit directly adjacent to Pleasure House Point Natural Area. If you haven't been there, go see for yourself the 118 acres of water, tidal marsh, sandy shores and maritime forest. The Comprehensive Plan provides specific planning guidance to "ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point." I do not see where this apartment complex would be a complement to this beautiful, tranquil natural area that was saved by our city. I ask that you please strongly consider the opposition from me and the other residents of Ocean Park when making such an important decision that will forever impact the beauty and culture of this community that I love so much! Kindly, Kristie Weaver 757-613-6978 Sent from my iPad 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Windy Crutchfield <windy.crutchfield@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,June 3, 2021 10:11 AM To: Hoa N. Dao; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; wgrahamvbpc@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; rkleinvbpc@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments in Conflict with Bayfront Communities Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. • •'• al',- 1 r• .. _ Ii. .,..„ , ,, _ ,... .., r-, -,k,. f S C\, . , . .2 -,_ , .:::\ 4,1/4\ --.41.1.. ,' ' r+#:- dipper Bay Dr z �f t ii .. !N �+etCw, ` iiitikoir' iiimpir ir 140 4 \1/4N y 41144t ININtki ' C ":a 4 , o .I c>'4111111V411/411 0 it' all '-- '''' -- 44to1/4?‘. 41111111ft 16' A N r Mr. Dao and City Planners, As a property owner directly adjacent to the proposed development since 1997, I have been attentive to the proposal by the developers over the past year. I do not believe the proposed development is in compliance with the Shore Drive/Bayfront Comprehensive Plan and have found fault with the statements made by the developer regarding the end product. I'm also interested to know what the city will receive in exchange for the city-owned paper streets and existing public green space that this plan will take from the Mariners Landing neighborhood. 1 The developer stated to me, and to others that I am aware of,that they will remove every last tree from another property they own adjacent to the Brock Environmental Center if the community doesn't get behind this proposal. It would be an unfortunate education for the new students at the Brock Center to watch that happen. They also said they will build 4 homes on the north side of Pleasure House Point because their site plans have already been approved by the city. From all accounts,the Ocean Park community has never expressed they would object to the property being improved upon and recognize a landowner's property rights to maximize their profit. But these stakeholders know cognitively that changing the zoning of this parcel, as defined in this proposal,will have a negative impact on the neighborhood,surrounding community,and this section of Shore Drive.The Shore Drive/Bayfront Corridor directive in the Comprehensive Plan states the intent of the City is to"Achieve the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses." It is not missed on this resident,that the Windsong Apartment playbook was used in this proposal,with a unit reduction of 13%,a private Traffic Study paid for by the developers to say there will be no impact, and a claim that storm-water improvements will be made.The difference the Planning Commission will have to overcome however is that this area has never had apartments and has no capacity for road expansion as stated in the Shore Drive Phase IV CIP 2-188. In addition, it includes removing city-owned property at the intersection of Clipper Bay and Ocean Tides Drives that has been used as an unofficial dog park for decades. The Comprehensive Plan specifies that the city will "Preserve and protect the character of the established neighborhoods." In the FAQs on the developers website,they start by indicating that they are providing adequate parking for the project with their parking garage.Their flyer indicates 1.82 spaces per unit,whereas they have 1,2,and 3 bedroom units. Their plan starts with inadequate parking for the density. Currently,the curb on the west side of Marlin Bay fills up with visitors to Pleasure House Point.The Marlin Bay Apartment residents and their guests will park on the east side,and then move into Mariners Landing from there. Mariners Landing residents currently park along the curb at the green space of Ocean Park and Clipper Bay as well as on the curbs of their streets.There will therefore be a loss of parking available to both the visitors to Pleasure House Point as well as the existing residents of Mariners Landing. This stretch of road from Marlin Bay to E. Stratford Rd is already funded for sidewalk improvements to start in 2023 to the tune of$14M. So the developer's statement#2 in their FAQ that they are improving the pedestrian path on Shore Dr misrepresents who is paying for that improvement,which is the city tax payers. It appears they are simply planting and providing green space around the city's multiuse path to beautiful their project. The statement that they will use environmentally-friendly practices in their project(FAQ#3) is commendable but also a requirement of the city regulations. And as addressed by John Moss in the June 1 City Council meeting,there is no capacity in the city's budget to oversee or enforce the on-going compliance to this promise. In their FAQs they point to the response from The Timmons Group,which is the same company hired by Windsong Apartments to infer that increased population will not have an impact on the traffic by stating they will maintain their"current level of service."About 10 years ago, a traffic study was done at this Marlin Bay/Shore Drive intersection and the statement was made by the officer that it is one of the most dangerous intersections in this corridor. There have been several residents that witness people running the new E.Stratford light combination because it is confusing to the eye. Every member of this Planning Department and Commission knows how deadly Shore Drive is,with the latest fatality on April 21'of this year.The city chose to remove the Fatality Signs but are still working hard to improve visibility and safety and this Project, in it's current density,will only profoundly increase the risk to pedestrians. 2 The 5th FAQ statement is that this property has been continuously privately-owned,which is not accurate.The property is currently and historically divided by city-owned paper streets. In order to develop to this magnitude,the city must agree to relinquish property rights that have been in place. That property has historically been a benefit to the Mariners Landing community with green space for dog walks. This proposal removes public green space for this neighborhood. Finally,the developers state that they are providing more pervious surface than the two parcels currently have. I have attached my rather gross aerial image of the property with sketches of the proposal. The west section (trailer lot) is almost entirely pervious gravel and sand,as is the central area (boat lot).There will be 3-4 story buildings and a pool, neither of which can be pervious. There are non- soil pervious areas possible,such as outside the pool deck perimeter and along paths, but one can visibly recognize that this land will not be less impervious than it is in its current state.This is directly opposite of the developers statements to the community that"no green space will be lost"and "it is currently 98%impervious."Again,the Marlin Bay residents will lose access to the city-owned green space at Ocean Tides&Clipper Bay under this project. I fully understand the water containment systems that will be installed,which will be required if the area is developed using it's existing zoning. I do have concerns however about the aged systems meeting up with the newer systems,thereby causing the city additional expense to handle the increased outflow with 400 new residents and their guests. I also have concerns about the outflow to the river during tidal events,which has breeched Shore Drive during many recent storms. I understand the outflow drainage on Marlin Bay Dr is the only one that serves that area which flows directly into the Lynnhaven River. In the Comprehensive Plan,the city has pledged to:"Provide continued support for restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay and Lynnhaven River."And specific to Pleasure House Point: • "Maintain and protect the significant investment that has been made to preserve Pleasure House Point for open space,limited recreation, natural resource preservation,and natural resource education. • Ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point." Despite the development branding this as luxury apartments in the Gateway to Virginia Beach,this community is an older residential neighborhood that has been burdened with an influx of tourists without public amenities along a road segment that the city itself labeled as having no capacity for expansion. Please consider that density is a legitimate concern, not a concept, and this current proposal will ultimately negatively impact the residents,the environment, and the city taxpayers in the long run. Kind regards, Windy Crutchfield, property owner at 3837 Ocean Tides Drive 3 Hoa N. Dao From: DellRita Gluckle <dellrita@outlook.com> Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 6:16 AM To: Irjones@vb.gov; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com Cc: Hoa N. Dao; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com Subject: OPPOSE the Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I strongly oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment Development. I am a home owner in the Ocean Park neighborhood. I grew up in Virginia Beach, and I moved to Colorado in the early 90's. My sister has lived in this neighborhood, as well as, many of my direct family members ever since I left Virginia Beach. I knew if I ever moved back to Virginia Beach, this is the neighborhood I would choose to settle down in. Growing up in the Plaza area, surrounded by the Plaza Apartments, that brought so much crime into our neighborhood, I felt Virginia Beach would never be a place I would ever call home again. I never wanted to feel the feeling of being robbed,jumped walking home from school, or simply being afraid to be home alone ever again. Every time I came home to visit from Colorado, and I walked through the Ocean Park neighborhood, I felt this sense of community, safety and peace. I always called Ocean Park "the diamond in the rough". I chose to move back to Virginia Beach a little over 4 years ago. I had the rare opportunity to find a rental in Ocean Park, and with a lot of determination, my dream came true, and I was able to buy my house in Ocean Park. My house backs up to the proposed new apartment complex development. I can honestly tell you, I would NEVER had bought this property, or any property in Virginia Beach, if I knew that someone was planning on ruining the Ocean Park neighborhood with an apartment complex. The Marlin Bay Development will destroy the character of Ocean Park. Ocean Park is small, historic community with a strong neighborhood identity. Ocean Park is composed of duplexes, townhouses and single-family homes. A large, multi-story complex would negatively impact the identity and quality of life in Ocean Park. Our neighborhood is unique and beloved for its character. Most of us moved here because of that special character, which has been enshrined by the City's Comprehensive and Shore Drive Corridor Plans. I believe that the existing properties at Marlin Bay Drive should be developed in accordance with existing zoning and City planning guidelines to include townhouses, duplexes and single-family homes, not a large high-density multi-family using erroneous mixed-use rezoning as the city is currently proposing. I oppose this complex because I believe the massive scale of the development will fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. The Bayfront Advisory Commission, appointed by City Council, did not approve this project. The current lots at the proposed Marlin Bay site are zoned PDH-1 and B-2. This project is not in compliance with City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. This project would sit directly adjacent to Pleasure House Point Natural Area which consist of 118 quiet acres of water, tidal marsh, sandy shores and maritime forest. The Comprehensive Plan provides specific planning guidance to "ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point." I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE MARLIN BAY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT! Thank you for your time and consideration. DellRita Gluckle 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Morgan Ayers <ayersmorgan@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,June 2, 2021 10:55 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, As a lifelong resident of Ocean Park since 1981 and a small business owner along Shore Drive, I strongly oppose the current planning commission application to change the zoning requirements for the Marlin Bay Apartments project. ALSO as a lifelong resident of Ocean Park, I want this property to be developed. The current owners who the developer is representing have NOT cared to make this corner look presentable for the last 35 years. HOWEVER, Marlin Bay is not the answer. We can do better, we need to elevate shore drive, make it desirable, protect our natural resources and take PRIDE in our culture and community along the Chesapeake Bay. One rejection of a proposal for development in the last 35 years is not a community being difficult, its a community that cares about the character of the community for the years to come...NOT THE RESIDUAL INCOME of their investments. There are a multitude of reasons to oppose the Marlin Bay project, but I believe the most egregious pertains to the city funded and developed ULI study from 1998 and the Shore Drive Corridor plan created in 2000. The intent of creating such referenceable documentation is to allow a community and city to focus on the bigger picture objectives of city planning. It removes political NOISE and allows staff, appointed city officials AND ELECTED officials to understand the INTENT of what their predecessors AND their communities found to be important and WORTH fighting for. For your focus area as city planner, the Marlin Bay request to change zoning is clearly outside the parameters of the city's zoning regulations. The developer proposes the rezoning of approximately 6.3 acres from PDH 1 and B2 (Commercial only) to B4. Refer to page 1 in the attachment for the proposed site. Currently, in the proposed site there are 2.17 acres zoned PDH1 and 3.15 acres zoned B2 for a total of 5.32 acres. In order to reach the 6.3 acres the developer will have to acquire the following streets from the City of Virginia Beach: Oceans Tides Drive—Actual, Oceans Tides Drive—Extended (paper) and Clipper Bay Drive—Extended (paper). Virginia Beach Zoning allows 36 units to be built per acre on property zoned B4. The number of units calculated is 6.3 acres times 36 units per acre which is equal to 226.8 (6.3 x 36 = 226.8) Rounding that number up means that 227 units can be built on the 6.3 acre construction site parcel. After proposed i construction the existing boat sales building and parking remain. If the existing boat sales remain and are not part of the construction site, then the acreage associated with that parcel cannot be included in the calculation of the number of units. The developer is using the zoning acreage change for their calculation of units and not what the actual construction site acreage will be, which has to be less than 5.3 acres. The developer's proposal is not in compliance with the City of Virginia Beach zoning ordinance. The proposed conditional use change to B-4 Mixed Use Zoning is inappropriate and incongruent with the Shore Drive Corridor plan that states it was INTENDED FOR COMBINED RETAIL AND HOUSING. With the description from above, it is clear that Marlin Bay Apartments are NOT combined with any sort of retail. The Shore Drive Plan and the comprehensive plan ADOPTED BY CC, specify a goal of low density. The density details described below would not only adversely affect the community, but all of our supporting infrastructure from roads, to parking, to stormwater runoff, to natural and cultural resources. Population Density: A physical count of mailboxes was completed for Ocean Park on the south side of Shore Drive. With ongoing construction, approximately 469 mail boxes were counted. On the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission's website it states that Virginia Beach has an average 2.6 persons per residence. Using the number of mailboxes and persons per residence, the south side of Ocean Park has a population of approximately 1,219 people. In the proposed site plan, as it is currently zoned, there are 2.17 acres of PDH1 (Residential only) that is undeveloped. Zoning for PDH1 allows twelve units to be built per acre. If the land parcels were to be developed as currently zoned only an additional 26 units could be built thereby adding an additional 68 persons to the population. As zoned, this would represent an increase in population density for the area of 5.6%. The developer is proposing the addition of a 197 unit complex. The proposed complex would add an approximate additional 500 persons to the population. If the proposed development goes through, Ocean Park on the south side of Shore Drive, will have a population density increase of 41%. Please go back and review the 1998 ULI Study, the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. By doing so, you will see that this proposal is far outside the already agreed upon vision this community has developed. Morgan Ayers-Comegys 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Steven Leisten <SLeisten@world-kinect.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 6:32 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I am a resident of Ocean Park and active member in the Ocean Park Civic League. We've lived in Aeries on The Bay from 2000 to 2010 and in Ocean Park since 2010. We moved here and have stayed here due to the character of the community and the diverse yet, small neighborhood feel. That's what makes Ocean Park such a safe and amazing place to raise a family. Our community endured so much hardship during the COVID Pandemic. Thankfully the Pleasure House Point Natural Area and our neighborhood served as a sanctuary for outdoor activity to promote mental and physical well-being. Our peaceful and environmentally conscious community has been threatened in the past. Floatopia comes to mind; too many people in too small of a small space disrupting our otherwise peaceful community. The Marlin Bay Development would destroy the character of Ocean Park. This high-density development would be double the population add of any recent Ocean Park development. The lot & zoning was not intended for this large of a development. Shore drive traffic currently congested & adding hundreds of more people/cars is simply too much for this area. This project is NOT in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. Building this large, high-density apartment complex directly adjacent to 118 quiet acres of water, tidal marsh, and maritime forest is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Ocean Park area. This would be City Planning's version of Floatopia; an unwanted, environmentally irresponsible, overcrowding, and traffic generating nuisance that would demonstrate very poor judgement on the part of City Planning. We strongly oppose this potential rezoning & development for this location. Regards, Steve Leisten 1 Director—National Sales World-Kinect Energy Services 4920 Southern Blvd. Virginia Beach,VA 23462 mobile: 757-376-1672 www.world-kinect.com World Mew k vk Our operations are carbon neutral. ee IcrlyibleoN P4t-4, z° Ask me how yours can be too. r Learn more at world-kinect.com E.44 *** This communication has been sent from World Fuel Services Corporation or its subsidiaries or its affiliates for the intended recipient only and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, disclosure, copying, use,or distribution of the information included in this communication and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this communication and delete the communication, including any attachments,from your computer. Electronic communications sent to or from World Fuel Services Corporation or its subsidiaries or its affiliates may be monitored for quality assurance and compliance purposes.*** 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Jennifer Snyder <jlbarber2@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 5:01 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Ocean Park, Marlin Bay Development Concerns Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings Mr. Dao, I am a homeowner in Ocean Park and am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Marlin Bay development. The developer is requesting a zoning change to allow for a higher density development than what exists in the community. I strongly feel this will negatively impact the character and charm in our community and is unlike existing structures in our area. I do feel that development in that lot is beneficial, however any solutions should be consistent with the existing policies, and therefore community. I strongly hope the council does not approve this zoning change and continue to ensure development along the Shore Dr corridor remains consistent with the overall neighborhood. In addition to changing the feel of our close-knit community,this development would be located directly across the street from Pleasure House Point, a nature preserve. The density of the proposed development would dramatically increase traffic along Marlin Bay Ave which parallels the park.The city has done a tremendous favor in preserving that area that is already a main attraction for the area. My concern with increased residents would be higher chances for trash, noise pollution, and other issues detrimental to the preserve. Thank you for listening to my concerns. I hope you all will help maintain the local charm that is Ocean Park. Respectfully, Jenny Snyder Pendleton Ave Jennifer Snyder,MPH 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Kate L. <katherineannemarie@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:43 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Zoning Change Opposition Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Mr. Dao, I'm writing to you to oppose the zoning change for the Marlin Bay apartments. I'm a resident of Surry Road, and our home backs up to Shore Drive. We hear cars drag racing all night long, and along Shore this month, there's been a serious car accident nearly weekly. Walking or biking along Shore Drive already feels unsafe with our two small kids, and a project that will add hundreds more cars to this already overburdened stretch of road seems like it will invite in more accidents. We love this community and would love to see it become a beacon for a walkable, sustainable example of coastal living. Please oppose changing the zoning for the apartments, and please support initiatives that will create a more walkable community here. Thank you, Kate Lewis 3729 Surry Road Hoa N. Dao From: Jeff Deal <jeff@idealfitvb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 1:54 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, My name is Jeff Deal and I currently live in Ocean Park off of Shore Drive. I'm writing to you to express my opposition to the rezoning of Marlin Bay Apartments. I am not someone who is opposed to new developments but Marlin Bay will create a great number of problems for our area and Virginia Beach as a whole. The stretch of Shore Drive we sit on already has a bad traffic problem. In the past 30 days alone traffic has but shut down to a stand still on 2 separate occasions for long periods of time. Daily traffic has increased over the last few years and now the new Lenar bridge shows no improvement to traffic patterns from just a few years ago. The intersection Marlin Bay would sit on is already extremely unsafe and adding hundreds of additional cars everyday will make it absolutely unsafe for pedestrians, especially younger kids who cross there everyday on bikes. There have been multiple pedestrian injuries and unfortunately fatalities. Adding hundreds of people all using this intersection everyday with certainly up this horrible statistic. The parking provided for apartment residents in grossly insufficient. This will leave only the street parking that the Brock center and Pleasure House Point currently uses. They rely on that parking for their student programs. Also people from around Virginia Beach will no longer be able to utilize Pleasure House Point because there simply will be no parking to access it. The Pleasure House Point/Brock Center is a phenomenal asset to Virginia Beach and we will now be taking this amenity away from Virginia Beach residents and visitors. The beach on shore drive has dwindled down to a mere fraction of what it once was. There is little safe space to enjoy the beach on a regular basis and on holidays, such as 4th of July, there is not enough beach for all of us to enjoy. The steep dunes are already crumbling and are very dangerous for anyone who sits near them, especially children who are unfortunately drawn to them. Our beach access recently received a poorly planned fence that narrows our access to the beach. There are five feet of unused flat beach that are no longer able to be used. People currently cannot safely pass through in both directions. Adding hundreds of people will create a bottle neck and most certainly frustrations and injuries. The environmental impact of Marlon Bay cannot be ignored either. The wild life and trails will absolutely be negatively affected. This is not in line with Virginia Beach's comprehensive plan. This area could certainly be better utilized with a plan that would compliment the surrounding neighborhoods while keeping the charm of Virginia Beach and her natural beauty. Thank you, Jeff Deal Jeff Deal, CSCS, CES, Owner IDEAL Fitness 757-963-8882 Voted Best In Virginia Beach- '20 & '21 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Steve Watts <swatts316@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 12:44 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr Dao, I am writing you in regard to the Marlin Bay apartment development project. As A resident of Ocean Park, I feel a development of this size in this location, would irreparably harm already overcrowded neighborhoods of Ocean Park. 33 units per acre is more than double any other development in Ocean Park and with traffic on shore Drive already reaching an untenable position as well as accidents on the rise because of the congestion. Consideration of any such project should be vetoed. This project would also sit directly adjacent to pleasure House point natural area a 118 acres of Water, Tide-marsh, Sandy shores and Maritime forest. Mr. Dao, I ask you to stand with The residence Ocean Park and help preserve the neighborhood. Thank you Steve Watts 3775 Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach VA 23455 Hoa N. Dao From: Lynlea Rudell <Irudell@poolscouts.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 12:36 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Oppose Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I am a resident and active member in the Ocean Park Neighborhood. I have been attending the various community meetings regarding the Marlin Bay Apartment Development. We feel blessed to be raising our children in a small, historic community with a strong sense of neighborhood identity. The Marlin Bay Development would destroy the character of Ocean Park.The high-density alone would double the population of any recent Ocean Park development.The lot&zoning was NOT intended for this large of a development. Shore drive traffic currently congested &adding hundreds of more people/cars is simply TOO much for this area. This project is NOT in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. The Pleasure House Point Natural Area and our neighborhood serve as a sanctuary for both physical and mental health for our citizens. Building this large, high-density apartment complex directly adjacent to 118 quiet acres of water,tidal marsh, and maritime forest would completely disregard the Comprehensive Plan for the Ocean Park area. We STRONGLY oppose this potential rezoning&development for this location. Thank you, Lynlea Rudell Marketing Manager Pool Scouts 2829 Guardian Lane,Suite 100 Virginia Beach,VA 23452 Irudell@poolscouts.com Connect on Linkedln Mobile:757-648-0627 1 Hoa N. Dao From: alanna deal <alannadoczi@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,June 2, 2021 11:43 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: NO WAY TO MARLIN BAY! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, My name is Alanna and I currently live in Ocean Park off of Shore Drive. I'm writing to you to express my opposition to the rezoning of Marlin Bay Apartments. I actually work for a development company and I am very much pro smart development, but this increase in density will create a host of other terrible issues and concerns. -Traffic.This stretch of Shore Drive is already having to adjust to the hundreds of new apartments that are popping up on the other side of the Lesner Bridge. I personally was T-boned at this very intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay, while pregnant and with a 5 year old child in the car.Thankfully we are all okay, but the intersection is already extremely unsafe and adding hundreds of additional cars will be an issue. - Pedestrians. Crossing this intersection is like playing a game of frogger.There have been multiple pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Without resolving the issue of this unsafe crosswalk, I can't imagine adding hundreds more people, who are all wanting to cross Shore Drive to get to the bay. - Parking.There is not adequate parking provided for apartment residents.This will leave only the street parking that the Brock center and Pleasure House Point currently uses. They rely on that parking for their student programs. Also people from around Virginia Beach will no longer be able to utilize Pleasure House Point because there simply will be no parking to access it. - Pleasure House Point/Brock Center.This is a true gem to Virginia Beach and we will now be taking this amenity away from Virginia Beach residents and visitors.There will simply be no parking - Beach. We barely have safe space to enjoy the beach as it currently exists.The steep dunes are already crumbling and a danger for our children and anyone who sits near the dune. - Beach Access. Our beach access recently received a poorly planned fence that narrows our access to the beach. There are five feet of unused flat beach that are no longer able to be used. People cannot safely pass through both directions. - Environmental impact. Virginia Beach is so fortunate to have the Brock Center and Pleasure house point.The impact on all the wild life and trails will take a toll. -Gateway.This is not in line with Virginia Beach's comprehensive plan.There is such a great opportunity to utilize this area with a development that will compliment the neighborhood and offer a positive impact on one of VB's key gateways. Thank you for your time and consideration. Warm Regards, Alanna Doczi Deal 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Brittney Bennett <bbennett8670@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:34 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I am a resident and member in the Ocean Park Neighborhood. I have been following the Marlin Bay Apartment Development plans. We bought a home here because of the benefits of a small communities and limited traffic after spending decades in Washington, DC. Our home value reflects this community culture. The Marlin Bay Development has the potential to dramatically shift the traffics patterns and way of life for the of Ocean Park communities. I'm sure you have read about the numbers expected already. It is my understanding that the very very high amount of new people would double the population in this neighborhood without any other infrastructure plans like roads, street lights or continued beach expansion. The lot & zoning was NOT intended for this large of a development. Shore drive traffic currently congested & adding hundreds of more people/cars is too much for this area. This project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. Building this large, high-density apartment complex directly across from acres of water, tidal marsh, and maritime forest would completely disregard the Comprehensive Plan for the Ocean Park area. We very very strongly oppose this potential rezoning & development for this location. Sincerely, Brittney Bennett 7039157225 Brittney.bennett@myriad.com Sent from my iPhone Hoa N. Dao From: J. B. <brooks.family92@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,June 2, 2021 10:09 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, Good morning, I am writing to express my opposition to the Marlin Bay Apartment Development based on the size and scope of the project.We moved here last summer for all that the Ocean Park area has to offer; community, beach access and activities, local restaurants and shops, parks, and recreation. The local bayside community is certainly a very special place to live. Adding an additional 197 units would place a tremendous strain on the already heavy traffic-laden Shore Drive corridor and would increase the population of our small community by 20%+. Building such a large structure with so many living units does not really fit with the surrounding Ocean Park footprint. Please keep Ocean Park the special Virginia Beach bayside community that it is. Thank you. Sincerely, Julie Brooks 3728 Vintage Pointe Place Virginia, Beach 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Tyler Birrittella <tbirrittella@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 9:15 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: NO to Marlin Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I'm writing to voice my concern on the Marlin Bay Apartment projects. I realize you may be inundated with emails concerning it so I will try and make my points as concise as possible.. -First of all the originally proposed 227 units was preposterous and the fact that it has been reduced to 195 units is not an acceptable or realistic adjustment. Zoning requirements are established beforehand FOR A REASON. Setting a precedent that zoning regulations mean nothing will eventually drive away homeowners in the Ocean Park neighborhood. -PLEASURE HOUSE POINT: I believe PHP will be dramatically affected by these new units. This location is one of few remaining preserved lands in the area. It is not a large area and one that is already taken advantage of by many people. Local homeowners are the ones who organize and participate in trash cleanup to keep the area as pristine as possible. Hundreds of more individuals in the area will lead to the eventual demise on PHP. -BEACHES: While I believe some areas of the beach can sustain the increase numbers of the Marlin Bay Project, I believe it is only possible with a fully replenished and large beach. As the beach stands now, it would not be able to accommodate hundreds of more people and their guests. Again, the charm of the neighborhood would be lost and happy homeowners would eventually move out of the area for reasons that once attracted them to it. -TRAFFIC: I understand the MBP plan on only having entrance and exit points on to Shore Drive, but it would be foolish to assume cars will not try and bypass congestions by cutting through the neighborhood to the South (where my wife, daughter, dog, and I live). I have seen cars cut through our neighborhood countless times, speeding and seemingly unconcerned with pedestrians or pets. These units WILL lead to a tragedy of some sort in the future. We are lucky it hasn't happened already. MY PROPOSED IDEA: I do understand the desire to develop that area and I do not completely disagree with it, but we must consider all stakeholders. Instead of 195 units I think around 75 units with mixed residential and commercial would be ideal. I believe that 2-3 storefronts that would allow for foot traffic would add to the appeal of the development as well as increase neighborhood pride.The space saved from the 195 units should be converted to green spaces (trees, small park etc.)This would not only appease current homeowners of the area but also increase the value of the apartments allowing a premium to be charged for the units thereby attracting tenants who would also take pride in their area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Mark E.Shea Sent: Wednesday,June 2, 2021 8:28 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: FW: Marlin Bay Apartment Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Fyi, Marlin Bay comments From: Claire R. Leblanc<Claire.Leblanc@VBSchools.com> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 8:33 AM To: Mark E. Shea<MEShea@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Project Mr. Shea, As a concerned resident of Mariner's Landing, I am writing in opposition to the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment Project. I am absolutely against the development of this type of housing. As many have said, I love the quiet charm of our neighborhood.The Marlin Bay Apartment proposal includes far too many units for the plot of land. Given the lot size, it would make more sense to have a developer produce townhomes similar to those in the area to fill the space.This would bring more residents to the area and preserve the neighborhood charm. I might even consider buying one of the new townhomes. I have lived in this quiet beachside neighborhood since my townhome on Ocean Tides Drive was built in 1984. Ocean Park is a family neighborhood where residents know each other and look out for one another.Adding a four-story, 197 multi-family dwelling at an approximate density of 32 units per acre is inappropriate for the location.The proposed 197 residential units would increase the existing number of households by 100%. Not to mention that young people primarily occupy apartments with frequent activities that would result in many people coming and going. Based on data from the City of Virginia Beach,Shore Drive traffic is already overcapacity. Given adjacent development,future widening is not an option.Therefore,further upzoning such as with this project,should not be allowed. I realize the property being considered will be developed one day, but we do not need more density;this will have a detrimental effect on our property values. I bought my townhouse because of the charm of the community. It feels like a small town within a big city.When the property directly behind my townhome is developed, it should be designed to enhance the area. If the plan as presented is approved, I feel sure my property value will decline. I have serious concerns about the proposed four stories.A four-story apartment complex in the Ocean Park area would be like no other development in the area. It would not fit the neighborhood and raises safety and privacy concerns. Additionally,the four-story complex will shade my backyard, killing my garden.Any development should ensure existing homes continue to receive sunlight without obstruction from new buildings (Solar Access). Another concern is that I fear the proposed development would harm the surrounding woods,wetlands,trails, parks, beaches,and rivers. People want to live in Ocean Park because of the amenities of the Lynnhaven Inlet on one side and the Chesapeake Bay on the other. Our surrounding area contains 118 acres of water,tidal marsh,sandy shores, and 1 maritime forest. It preserves one of the largest undeveloped parcels on the Lynnhaven River.The Shore Drive corridor has undergone a significant transformation over the past several decades.This activity has changed the area's character and undermines the very resources that drew me to the site. Finally,the noise created by the mechanical equipment for the new development will be a significant irritant for those of us closest to the site. Of course,with 197 units,the noise will continue with the increase in inhabitants and activity in the area. My job requires me to be up and out of the house early in the morning;thus, I go to bed early. My suggestion is for the developer to go back to the drawing board to find a project that will complement the surrounding area and meet the existing zoning requirements. Our beaches are already crowded, and parking is an issue. To claim parking will not be an issue,traffic will not increase,and that this project would be environmentally friendly is outrageous. Any new development should be oriented toward the protection and enhancement of the character of existing neighborhoods. In this case,the proposed new development is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. I would like it to be something more beneficial to the Ocean Park community and Shore Drive Corridor. Respectfully, Claire R. Le Blanc 3848 Ocean Tides Drive 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Brian Snyder <basnyder@vt.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:32 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Vote No to Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Mr. Dao, I am a property owner and year-round resident of Ocean Park and I'm contacting you to request you deny the zoning changes that would be required for the 190+ unit Marlin Bay development to move forward. My primary opposition is that the density requested is far above the density of the rest of the Ocean Park neighborhood. This neighborhood is full of long-term year-round residents that has created a tight knit community. The large increase in rental apartments will change the neighborhood for the worse in my opinion. I want to see development, but done responsibly and in accordance with the already established zoning regulations. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Brian Snyder 757-236-1310 (cell) 3711 Pendleton Ave I. Hoa N. Dao From: Ali Fortier <afortier502@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:06 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: No to zoning changes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged LCAUTIOr, This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, As a 20-year resident of Ocean Tides Drive, and in very close proximity to the proposed Marlin Bay apartment development, I am writing to ask for your support in opposing the proposed rezoning and development at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B-2/PDH-1 to a conditional B-4 zone. While I am not opposed to all future development on this site, I do have significant concerns regarding the type of rezoning being proposed for the Marlin Bay development: .This type of apartment complex does not fit into the historic neighborhood of single family homes, duplexes, and townhomes that is Ocean Park •Large apartment complexes are clustered together near other dense-land spaces, not in small, long-established neighborhoods, making such a proposed plan incongruent with the limited footprint that exists within Ocean Park •Once the property is rezoned, the developers could further develop the property. The parcels are not under one ownership. If the Boat Sale parcel segregates itself, it could be redeveloped as a separate parcel. •My opposition is also based on these probable negative effects: o the loss of neighborhood and community character I have enjoyed for over 20 years o a decrease in the market value of my home O overcrowding on our neighboring Chesapeake Bay beach which is already very narrow O increased traffic congestion, adding to an already dangerous Shore Drive corridor I appreciate your support of local voices in preserving our community. Very respectfully, David & Alice Fortier Ocean Park residents, Ocean Tides Drive Sent from my iPhone 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Valdivieso, Jeff[USA] <Valdivieso_Jeffrey@bah.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 3:08 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon, My name is Jeff and my fiancé and I am are homeowners in the Ocean Park Neighborhood. We are both young professionals in our late 20s and have lived in the neighborhood for coming up on 3 years. We feel that our voices are important due to our intentions to not only remain in the area for the foreseeable future, but to make an impact on it as well. We are strongly against the re-zoning proposed to the property adjacent to Shore Dr and Marlin Bay Dr.A High- Density 200-unit apartment complex would ruin the aesthetic and charm to our neighborhood while opening the door to similar projects down the line. Virginia Beach already feels littered with such apartment complexes which warrants the need to keep single family communities in place. The traffic study conducted does not account for the already concerning parking issues revolved around those wishing to visit Pleasure House Point or the beaches. A 200-unit apartment complex would not only add that many residents to the area, but the visitors of those residents as well. While we believe that a change should be made to this property,we believe that change should fall under its CURRENT zoning. Best, Jeff Valdivieso Booz I Allen I Hamilton Mobile: 757-650-6432 Valdivieso Jeffrey@bah.com jeffrey.s.valdivieso.ctr@navy.mil 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Jenny Neyland <jenny.neyland@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 2:07 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Opposition to Marlin Bay apartment complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAtJTinN•This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to ask for your support in opposing the proposed development at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay.While I am certainly not opposed to all future development on this site, I do have significant concerns regarding the type of rezoning being proposed for the Marlin Bay Apartment Complex.The home we own and love is on Ocean Tides Dr, which is immediately adjacent to the proposed rezoning site so this issue is very personal for me. • This type of apartment complex does not fit into the historic neighborhood of single family, duplexes, and townhouse homes that is Ocean Park. • Large apartment complexes are clustered together near other dense-land spaces, and not in small long- established neighborhoods, making such a proposed plan incongruent with the limited footprint that exists within Ocean Park. • My opposition is also based on these probable negative effects:the loss of neighborhood and community character, a decrease in the market value of my home on Ocean Tides Dr and increased traffic congestion on my street, adding to an already dangerous Shore Drive corridor. Very respectfully, Jenny Neyland Miller -Jenny 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Joe Gregory <ysustg@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday,June 1, 2021 1:50 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION!This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I'm writing due to concerns regarding the Marlin Bay Development on Shore Dr in Ocean Park. I have lived in Ocean Park and Aeries on the Bay since 2008. I am not against development. I understand the need for it and the potential benefits. However, the existing properties at Marlin Bay Drive should be developed in accordance with the existing zoning and City planning guidelines to include townhouses, duplexes and single-family homes, not a large high-density multi- family development The incredible scale of the development will irrevocably change the neighborhood. In addition, it will set a terrible precedent by allowing the development of a high-density complex, which could open the door for more similar projects in the future. The Shore Drive corridor needs many basic improvements, such as sidewalks, before additional development should be considered. This project will bring harm to this neighborhood that it may not recover from. Sincerely, Joe Gregory 2116 Woodlawn Ave VB, VA 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Daniel Murphy <idrmurphy@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:50 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Proposed MP Shore, LLC/Marlin Bay Development Rezoning &Conditional Use Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTIO . This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I am simply writing to you in a personal capacity as a resident and citizen and not in my official position as President of the Ocean Park Civic League. Please find the following points of opposition to the proposed "Marlin Bay Development" before Planning and the Planning Commission: • The proposed project has a stated density of 31 units per acre using the dubious and precedent setting inclusion of an existing commercial business lot and building to rezone the lots to B-4 mixed use. I feel this conflicts with the spirit of regulations, definition and code but it is technically flawed. Without the roughly 2 acre lot of the existing adjacent boat sales building,the true density would be 46 units per acre! Also, I also suspect that the zoning lot conflicts with the City's own documentation and a definition of a zoning lot,this application does not fit due to the expansive distance and roadway(not alley) between the existing boat sales lot as stated "Zoning Lot -A lot or any portion thereof, or contiguous lots under common ownership within a single zoning district,which are to be used, developed, or built upon as a unit. For the purpose of this definition, lots of the same ownership separated solely by an alley of no more than twenty (20) feet in width and by a distance not exceeding the widt h of the alley shall be considered contiguous" • As provided by the City's Comprehensive Plan and specifically the Shore Drive Corredor Strategic Focus Area any rezoning and conditional use should "Preserve and protect the character of the established neighborhoods; and Achieve the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses;" And specifically"Ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point."That said, any rezoning and conditional use of these lots should allow for a density less than the adjacent PDH-1 Mariners Landing Townhomes (est 12 units per acre) and the Three Ships Condominiums(A-18) directly across Shore Drive at a density of 12 units per acre. • Due to the necessity to raise the base elevation of the lots,the 3,4&4.5 story building will be considerably taller than the existing Mariners Landing Townhomes and Shore Drive roadway. While the drawings present desirable apartment development, much like The Pearl on Great Neck Road, (200 units on 14 acres),the scale, density and massing of this project is inappropriate and will likely destroy the nature and character of our community.There are many more projects throughout the city which would serve as a model for the eventual development of these lots. Again, if you feel I have misinterpreted any of the facts in my opposition, please fee►free to reach out and discuss. 1 Respectfully, Daniel Murphy idrmurphy@gmail.com Cell: 757.435.4389 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Windy Crutchfield <windy.crutchfield@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 8:49 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamvbpc@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johncoston@gmail.com; rkleinvbpc@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Baylake Pines Civic League opposition to Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao and Planning Commissioners: Over a year ago, we learned of the planned apartment development at the corner of Marlin Bay, which would require rezoning from townhomes. Located within a half mile of the proposed development,we believed that we would meet with the developers, but never had an opportunity presented to us. Our civic league reviewed the plan on the developer's website, listened to the Bayfront Advisory Commission consider the proposal, as well as read information provided by the Ocean Park Civic League. Finally, we listened to two proponents of the project in person at our recent civic league meeting.The Baylake Pines Civic League General Membership has voted to oppose the current proposal for Marlin Bay Apartments due to an increase in high-turnover residential population in this corridor of Shore Drive, storm water drainage concerns, and increased traffic in an already dense residential area.This project does not comply with the City of Virginia Beach's Comprehensive Plan, which specifies that "any development in the surrounding area is complimentary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource an open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point." We are opposed to a change in zoning required for the project that is currently proposed. Thank you for considering the negative impact this development will have on our residents and environment. Baylake Pines Civic League President,John Borum 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Elizabeth Ballenger <eeballenger@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 6:40 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAt)TION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I am writing to express my opposition for the rezoning of the Marlin Bay site and the potential Marlin Bay Apartment Development and asking you to please consider voting against this. My husband and I own our home at 2137 Whispering Sands Lane. There are several reasons why I oppose this development, including the terrible president this rezoning will set, the fact that the area is not a strategic growth area, as well as that our neighborhood of Ocean Park cannot safely handle anymore traffic. I am originally from Louisiana and have seen the negative impact that improper rezoning and development have had on the community, environment, and residents of my hometown. I feel as if I am reliving the past seeing these developments being considered in this area. The current lots proposed for this development are zoned PDH-1 and B-2. This request for "conditional use" to B-4 Mixed Use zoning is completely inappropriate. I have seen rezoning for recent projects and while I still oppose some of these, they have been completed at a far lower density, for example 14.29 apartments per acre as opposed to this 31.77 per acre. Virginia Beach's Comprehensive Plan and the Shore Drive Corridor Plan were created to maintain low density for this area and this proposed development is a direct opposition to the established plan that our elected officials in city council voted upon. This plan was established to protect the area and residents from dangerous traffic, parking issues, as well as stormwater runoff. Furthermore, the Bayfront Advisory Commission did not approve the project. One of my greatest concerns about this project (from the very long list) is the protection of Pleasure House Point Natural Area which the community fought so hard to establish and protect. This 118 acres of water, tidal marsh, sandy shores, and maritime forest is not only a place for all Virginia Beach residents and visitors to enjoy but also such an important area for our wildlife and environment. The city's Comprehensive Plan provides direct guidance to ensure this area is protected, stating: "ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resources and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point." On a personal level, my husband and I chose to make Virginia Beach our permanent residence after living in Ocean Park and experiencing its small community with a very strong neighborhood and identity.We have seen other areas of Virginia Beach be overly developed with high-density apartments and are afraid of the alarming president this development will make for future developments. Furthermore, this neighborhood houses duplexes, townhouses, and single-family homes and a large complex such as this would negatively impact the quality of life for the residents of Ocean Park. I thank you for your time and consideration as well as all the work you do for our community. Our community relies on you and our future is held in your hands. I ask that you please take the time to consider all input from the residents that actually live in this area. I am not against all types of development even for this area but I am against development that directly hurts the community who have worked so hard to maintain this area as a safe place to live as well as protect the beautiful environment that surrounds us. Sincerely, Elizabeth Ballenger (985) 960-0151 2137 Whispering Sands Lane Virginia Beach,VA 23455 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Natalie McIntyre <narice@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 3:55 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Please Oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr Dao Thank you in advance for reading this email and many others you have received as well as your consideration for the thoughts and input from those who currently live in Ocean Park. Our family was brought to the area with the US Navy, we currently own two properties in the neighborhood,we have started our family here and can't wait to watch it grow. However, issues with flooding,traffic flows on Shore Drive where people drive too fast and don't stop for red lights and the gowing number of accidents, beach erosion and over development of the area such as multiple unit developments where one unit once stood have brought us concerns for the safety of our children, lack of parking, home flooding and general loss of green space/over crowding. We strongly oppose the Marlin Bay Apartments and ask you to consider the same opposition.Thank you very much for your consideration. Kind regards Peter and Natalie (Ocean Park Residents) 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Callum Fletcher <esportsfletch@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 8:10 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Ocean Park Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I wanted to write this evening to ensure my voice was heard in regards to the proposed complex at Marlin Bay. I'm a new resident who lives off Mystic Cove Drive, having just moved here from a similar style apartment complex in central Illinois. I strongly, strongly, strongly oppose this project, and hope to see either a significantly reduced strategy or alternative strategy entirely used for this space. I believe the foot traffic, car traffic, noise pollution, aesthetics, and everything inbetween on a project/complex like this will be horrible for our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day! Callum Fletcher Hoa N. Dao From: Karen Lashells <d.lashells@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 1:59 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay apts. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I cannot think of one single benefit of building apartments on Marlin Bay and Shore drive. City planners continue to talk out of both sides of their mouth. Shore drive already floods in areas.The unbelievable congestion on Shore drive from previously built condominiums. The character has Shore drive has already changed so drastically it's barely recognizable to people that have been here for 20 years or more I happen to have been here for 63. I thought zoning rules for established because of foresight and planning and to maintain the integrity of an area.You can model that concept for the people you represent who you work for by saying no to this development. Use the land for something people from the other side of the bridge and the other people that live here and pay taxes will be proud of maybe something like a farmer's market. 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Claire R. Leblanc <Claire.Leblanc@VBSchools.com> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 8:22 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: 'cblanc2@cox.net' Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Mr. Dao, As a concerned resident of Mariner's Landing, I am writing in opposition to the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment Project. I am absolutely against the development of this type of housing. As many have said, I love the quiet charm of our neighborhood.The Marlin Bay Apartment proposal includes far too many units for the plot of land. Given the lot size, it would make more sense to have a developer produce townhomes similar to those in the area to fill the space.This would bring more residents to the area and preserve the neighborhood charm. I might even consider buying one of the new townhomes. I have lived in this quiet beachside neighborhood since my townhome on Ocean Tides Drive was built in 1984. Ocean Park is a family neighborhood where residents know each other and look out for one another.Adding a four-story, 197 multi-family dwelling at an approximate density of 32 units per acre is inappropriate for the location.The proposed 197 residential units would increase the existing number of households by 100%. Not to mention that young people primarily occupy apartments with frequent activities that would result in many people coming and going. Based on data from the City of Virginia Beach,Shore Drive traffic is already overcapacity. Given adjacent development,future widening is not an option.Therefore,further upzoning such as with this project,should not be allowed. I realize the property being considered will be developed one day, but we do not need more density;this will have a detrimental effect on our property values. I bought my townhouse because of the charm of the community. It feels like a small town within a big city. When the property directly behind my townhome is developed, it should be designed to enhance the area. If the plan as presented is approved, I feel sure my property value will decline. I have serious concerns about the proposed four stories.A four-story apartment complex in the Ocean Park area would be like no other development in the area. It would not fit the neighborhood and raises safety and privacy concerns. Additionally,the four-story complex will shade my backyard, killing my garden.Any development should ensure existing homes continue to receive sunlight without obstruction from new buildings (Solar Access). Another concern is that I fear the proposed development would harm the surrounding woods,wetlands,trails, parks, beaches,and rivers. People want to live in Ocean Park because of the amenities of the Lynnhaven Inlet on one side and the Chesapeake Bay on the other. Our surrounding area contains 118 acres of water,tidal marsh,sandy shores, and maritime forest. It preserves one of the largest undeveloped parcels on the Lynnhaven River.The Shore Drive corridor has undergone a significant transformation over the past several decades.This activity has changed the area's character and undermines the very resources that drew me to the site. Finally,the noise created by the mechanical equipment for the new development will be a significant irritant for those of us closest to the site. Of course,with 197 units,the noise will continue with the increase in inhabitants and activity in the area. My job requires me to be up and out of the house early in the morning;thus, I go to bed early. i My suggestion is for the developer to go back to the drawing board to find a project that will complement the surrounding area and meet the existing zoning requirements. Our beaches are already crowded,and parking is an issue. To claim parking will not be an issue,traffic will not increase,and that this project would be environmentally friendly is outrageous.Any new development should be oriented toward the protection and enhancement of the character of existing neighborhoods. In this case,the proposed new development is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. I would like it to be something more beneficial to the Ocean Park community and Shore Drive Corridor. Respectfully, Claire R. Le Blanc 3848 Ocean Tides Drive 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Ashley Bilbo <cabilbo@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 3:52 PM To: Hoa N. Dao; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@iclould.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder- brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development-opposition Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. VB Planning Commission, I am writing this email to inform the planning commission that I am in opposition of the Marlin Bay Apartment Development. I would have liked to speak at the commission hearing; however, I will be conducting important business during the dedicated timeframe. I oppose this project because: 1. 197 apartments are too numerous and will crowd our community. Residents do not want numerous apartments because we feel the project is grossly populated for the amount of space allocated. The plot of land carved out for this project sends a negative message to all nearby communities as well. There are numerous apartment complexes already in the vicinity of this area and adding more will degrade the community involvement and culture. I would be in favor of residential, long-term housing on a smaller scale. For example, adding condos/townhouses to this space would be better suited to harness an environment for community engagement. Take for instance, the significant impact the residents of this community made on the Lynnhaven River Project. This grassroots movement started with the local community who had a long-term stake in the success of Virginia Beach. 2. I am told this project will reconfigure the street access. I think this is a dangerous idea as Marlin Bay is used by many to enter the neighborhood and access Pleasure House Point. The current street layout has more space for cars to safely enter the neighborhood and it divides the direction of traffic. This access was engineered to triage the flow of traffic with the neighborhood layout. Allowing alternate access will increase traffic on residents' streets. Children ride their bikes in this area, and I worry this will create a hazardous environment. 3. This project will impact the resource allocation of the community and it does not align with efforts to prevent sea level rise. Norfolk's nearby Coastal Resilience Strategy is outlined to mitigate coastal flooding risk. Building a large concrete garage and squeezing the proposed 197 units into this area is a concern that will impact residents for years to come. Currently the lot has green space to help absorb water and prevent sinkholes. A few miles down the road, the military is evaluating sea level rise and is considering this issue a threat to operational readiness. Adding this large-scale concrete project does not align with efforts to mitigate sea level rise. Please represent the long-term residents and revise the current proposal today. Thank you, Ashley Bilbo Ocean Park Resident 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Michael Wills <mwills98@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 8:14 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com;johnhcoston@gmail.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Apts Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao and VB Planning Commission Members, As a 20 year resident of Ocean Park, I am writing to express my opposition to the overdevelopment of the Browning's Marine property. I respectively ask that your commission not approve the rezoning as requested in the Marlin Bay apartment proposal. Rezoning to allow an increased density far beyond what is allowed by-right and which far exceeds current Ocean Park density is not compatible. Being involved in the residential construction industry, I am all for progress and development but it needs to be checked and done responsibly. This project will place too much burden on the existing infrastructure, overcrowd this waterfront community and will result in further declines in the quality of life enjoyed by existing residents of the Bayfront area. I thought we learned from Ocean View decades ago, how too many apartments and multi-family units can destroy a beachfront community? Please do not allow this project to move forward and destroy the character of our neighborhood. We are already overwhelmed by visitors parking all over neighborhood streets to access the beach and this will only further add to the overcrowding and parking issues we have. Please send a message to these developers that they will not be allowed to cram an excessive amount of units onto these properties above what is permitted by-right in order to maximize profits. Please deny these applications as proposed. Thank you for your careful consideration and opportunity to share my concerns and ideas. Sincerely, Mike Wills 3841 Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach, VA 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Amy Jordan <amyj05672@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 3:27 PM To: Hoa N. Dao; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com;johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Baylake Pines Resident Opposition to Marlin Bay Apartments Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao and Members of the Planning Commission: Admittedly, I've never written a letter like this one before. I've never opposed a project so much. But I feel it's very important for you to hear from the residents of the West end of the Shore Drive corridor of Virginia Beach regarding how we feel about this proposed Marlin Bay apartment complex. I don't want to keep seeing multi-story apartments and condos creeping down to our end of Shore Drive. My neighborhood of Baylake Pines is characterized by single family homes.That's one of the reasons many families choose to live here. The neighborhoods on either side of us have single family homes, duplexes and in the one case in Chesapeake Beach, one two-story apartment complex.Three and four story buildings with large parking garages don't belong here where we live. Approving such a project sets a terrible precedent for high density projects in this portion of the Shore Drive corridor. At 31.77 units per acre,this project represents more than double the density of any recent project in or around Ocean Park. This proposed project is totally not in compliance with the Plans City Council adopted for the Shore Drive corridor or the City's Comprehensive Plan. Both plans state a goal of low density for our area. Why is this being ignored? The City's Comprehensive Plan also specifies that any development in the area surrounding our precious natural resource of Pleasure House Point is to be complementary to the natural area in terms of both design and land use. The proposed monstrosity of an apartment complex does not. The developer claims the proposed apartment complex will help "revitalize"the area. I feel quite the opposite. It cheapens the area. We don't want it! Please,take the voices of the citizens who live nearby into consideration for once! Amy Jordan 4308 Lookout Road Virginia Beach, VA 23455 Homeowner in Baylake Pines since 2010 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Paige Simmons <paigedenver@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 12:25 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development - opposed Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I am writing to you in regard to the huge apartment complex that is proposed for the Ocean Park neighborhood. We LOVE our neighborhood and it's quirkiness, our neighbors and the proximity to the bay. Unfortunately, it is changing rapidly and not all in a positive way. So many of our beautiful live oaks are being wiped out for development (they should be protected) and the quaint, beautiful neighborhood is starting to becoming overcrowded and over run with development. I hate to think what will happen if this moves forward. The other side of the Lesner bridge (immediately after the bridge) is a huge treeless plot of apartments and high rises. Not only can the fragile Bay not handle this much development but Shore Drive can't either. I already fear for my safety just trying to cross Shore on any given day. Folks drive like its a raceway and rarely does anyone stay within speed limit. I can't imagine what it will be like with hundreds of more folks trying to use Shore Drive. We have a low density plan for this area and it needs to stay that way. This is NOT what this area needs or wants. I oppose this because hundreds of more people and more cars are too much for our neighborhood, because we sit directly adjacent to the fragile Pleasure House Point Natural Area (with our tidal marsh, and maritime forest), because we are NOT in a strategic growth area with a goal of low density, because this will set a bad precedence for this future of this area and will turn it into a treeless apartment neighborhood and we will lose all of what makes it so special.And from what I understand even the Bayfront Advisory Commission that was appointment by city council did not approve this project. We are a small historic community with a strong neighborhood identity and this project is just another step in destroying what makes it such a special place to live. It feels like it is just all about$$ and not about what the residents want and what the bay and this neighborhood can handle. We LIVE here and we DO NOT want this to happen. No one I have spoken to in our neighborhood about this project wants it to happen as proposed. Please, please, please help us preserve what we have invested in. I hate to have to leave and move to Pungo. Thank you, Paige Simmons 3781 Jefferson Blvd paigedenver@gmail.com 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Matt Farrell <MattFarrell2@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 11:43 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Opposing the Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Mr. Doa, I am a resident of Aeries on the Bay and live directly across the street from the proposed Marlin Bay apartment development. I am sure that you have been receiving other messages like mine, but I want to emphasize that there are many more who share my opinion, but will not get around to reaching out to you before the city makes a decision. We live in an active, yet peaceful area of Virginia Beach, full of families with children, pets, and weekend visitors. Our community is special in that it offers public beaches, but provides a feeling of safety and security that is not always offered elsewhere, such as at the Oceanfront. Currently, I have neighbors who feel comfortable not locking a front door at night, leave their bikes in their driveway overnight, teach their children how to ride a bikes throughout neighborhood street, and feel safe in seeing familiar faces throughout their streets. We strongly feel that a large development added to an already populated area of Shore Drive will slowly open our community to further large development projects and strip us of the special character that it currently offers. On behalf of myself and our community, please do not let this project move forward. Thank you, Matt Farrell Hoa N. Dao From: Shirley Dannenhoffer <sadannenhoffer@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 3:02 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I have lived in Virginia Beach off Shore Drive since 1966. It is certainly not the quaint place it used to be. Shore Drive has had so much development that it has caused huge traffic problems and dangerous situations for pedestrians crossing the street due to the high volume of cars. The Marlin Bay Apartment Development will just add to the existing problem. As a homeowner in Ocean Park and Baylake Pines, I oppose this development because this will add hundreds of more people and cars to the small Ocean Park neighborhood. The Pleasure House Point Natural Area across the street will be overused and most likely disturbed with all the people and all the dog feces. It will be hard to keep the land preserved as a wildlife area. In addition, there will be more people using the beaches and parking in "no parking zones". This will add more litter to our beautiful beaches and more disagreements between homeowners and people trying to park in their yards. Please stop letting developers destroy the beauty of Shore Drive. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! Thank you for your time and consideration to this request. Sincerely, Shirley Needham Dannenhoffer 757-287-8168 Sent from my iPad Hoa N. Dao From: teesh brazier <brazierteesh@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 2:24 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr.Dao, Please take a moment to read my letter in regards to changing our neighborhood forever. I have lived on Whispering Sands Lane for twenty two years. I have received two flyers. Of course one from our Civic League in Ocean Park. Today I found a well done professional flyer from the developers. I found two sentences that revealed two more reasons for the development. More tax revenue for the city. The second really hit home. A "gateway to the Oceanfront". We are not Atlantic or Pacific Avenues. That is one big reason we don't want 197 units of rental units in our backyard. A parking garage 4 1/2 stories high at the entrance of a 118 acre preserve. We have thousands of people from throughout Virginia Beach that visit and enjoy. Even if there were only one car per unit, it would change getting in and out of a park that the city along with other supporters use as their gateway for all of Virginia Beach to enjoy. Recently we spoke to families who were at the local beach from New Jersey. Asking how they knew of the beach. They said it was advertised on a slick flyer from our tourist bureau. So, a monster building to show a gateway to the high rise hotels at the Oceanfront, and a residential beach being advertised. We all see it coming. The zoning has to be changed and at that it will include businesses. What? It will double the density. It's not in compliance with the City' Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Dr. Corridor Plan. The Bayfront Advisory Commission did not approve the project. There is a natural preserve just down the way. Will that be in the plan for the Tourist Bureau to advertise to all of the east coast? We have had small old homes torn down and beautiful homes using land wisely built. We all feel that the land should be in unison with what it is adjacent to. We have moms with carriages, walkers, bicyclists, dog walking and they are part of a unique area. This area is popular because of what it is. The developers will make lots of money month after month. They are not going to be there for the noise traffic and their property values going down. This development doesn't comply with anything. It is for one reason. To make money over many years for the developers. Another reason has been used to seduce the project being built with the city, by increasing revenue. Interestingly, the developer flyer had an obviously retired couple on the front. Seduce retirees? This neighborhood is mostly families, and still other younger families wanting to raise their children in a neighborhood similar to what they grew up in. Please. New buildings will come. But they should be as the neighborhood they are building in, and not try to make us a mini Oceanfront. Thank you, I got wordy, but believe me this is my home,my life and it is being threatened by big money developers. Many thanks Teesh Brazier 2110 Whispering Sands Lane 757-544-8432 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Tina Davenport <tinadaven@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 2:06 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: MARLIN BAY APARTMENTS Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao: As a 22 plus year resident in the Shore Drive corridor, I oppose the rezoning and the potential development of the property on the corner of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. This property should be developed in accordance with the existing zoning and city planning guidelines to include townhouses, duplexes and single family homes, not large high density multifamily housing using erroneous mixed-use rezoning as is currently proposed. Marlin Bay Apartments will change the character of this area and any development should be consistent with the character of the residential use in the surrounding area. The proposed zoning is not in the strategic growth area where it belongs. Sincerely, Tina Davenport Baylake Pines Resident (757) 343-7526 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Nina White <nmdtw40@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26,2021 1:56 PM To: City of Virginia Beach Mayors Office; Louis R.Jones;John Moss;Aaron R. Rouse; Rosemary C.Wilson Subject: MARLIN BAY PROJECT Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. May 25, 2021 I am a current resident of Baylake Pines and my home is located one block from the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments project. I am writing in opposition to the requested increased density and rezoning of Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4 in order to allow the building of 197, or more, units. I understand the needs and rights of Landowners to develop their property, but this request is not compatible with development in this area of Shore Drive. I would, however, support development similar to the projects directly across Shore Drive from the proposed Marlin Bay project. I have provded pictures of those projects for your review. Since there is a commercial business presently on this property, I would also be in favor of a nicely designed and carefully planned commercial project. With new and currently proposed residential developments on or near Shore Drive (i.e., The Pearl -https://lifeatpearl.com/; Westminster Canterbury-https://www.pilotonline.com/business/vp-nw-westminster- canterbury-0111-20200110-66a1x6eku5dplbgf31ks3bi67Y-story.html ),traffic on Shore Drive will, in the very near future, greatly increase. The proposed Marlin Bay project (with 197 or more units)will significantly add to the numbers of vehicles traversing an already congested area. I have personally experienced, on many occasions, vehicles traveling East on Shore Drive stacked up well beyond Bayville Road waiting for the stoplight to change at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive Furthermore, the foot traffic this development will generate will only increase the chances of pedestrian/vehicle accidents on Shore Drive. People living in these new units will frequently walk across Shore Drive to access the Chesapeake Bay beaches. As a long-term resident(37 years) of this neighborhood, I have personally witnessed the impact of pedestrian accidents on US Route 60/Shore Drive in the past- lowering the speed limit from 45 MPH to 35 MPH as well as a sign count warning of the number of such incidences (which was eventually removed by the City). In addition to the fear of additional loss of life, I am also concerned that these types of development projects would place further pressure on City Officials to lower the speed limit further to 30 MPH or lower, creating additional gridlock on one of the few East/West Corridors in our city. I very much appreciate you giving consideration to my concerns and hope the outcome will include a major decrease in density of any potential development project on this site. Sincerely, i Nina T. White .; ..., . ->r -it,;;'. ,14,.,,i, .-' 7 . to4,-... - 4.. - . 1 'lii- .......„, --c--.. --.,, . , .•'K.': • ,,,„.. -i• '.;.' :I'. e ir..,,,,,A:.-:,-,_,.._,-.-_-,-,Alp:, .. _ . -..,,.,-..,..-.,,...,F,,r.,t,•,,,,,. .:4:4 ,,';',_.k..,i. .1-.; ,k,-, ,..._::-.44„:4.47::::,, ;.,,,,,„-, -: s ,,.,......; ., z.z,.,- i.,,46. -... ..;:l,,,,,:'••ti i‘-ruiss5..%le"..'.''I-7•fri , :•-•• ,i.; '•0.,,..i ,, - , ."-4 •..-'a ..,.., . , ...,:: , .:.,'.7 0, ' 0:71114,... ".;...," '''_'. • ' • . ' ....'1' ., -• ."t„,t;;;. ' • :-; i A ,.„,: -, *1;.-f-Li, ‘ --,-4 •-.' '-—0 .;-,r.r.11-r,--.--f'' 'f• -"- ' ---- - '----- .,,,-,-... '.‘•, -.?q-.‘- -- '-v. - , -L. '4.4i.4:,--..- i.:. .-1-...--.4,-,-*. ...-A :-. -.---.7 ot,'.-,<';,•-• ."7..;tf•N,.. , -.. \••.',,_ -::',":'•:,;;•11.1-.i: '''1,-Atit„ .t'.„, Tik. .:•14:---. - ,r_•4r t ,-, ,r-,t , , , „• .., .-.?„.:. t;ip„,,..1.!Ili., • :1- , 'I • ..,, 4,,,:re.....7--,,_ -.4.....,,-.. .S.'- • it...., . ' •----.. • •4..•42•-•tailfr..24t. •;.,2.'' '-t•-4 s'-:,--0,..•;..4-g-.. ...... . ,,,.., ,41....„..,:.1,„, ,..„1..7...-. -.,.7,•.,. „ -:-,,-,,.... .,-,-,t.-. 1,,,,..-.-:, -,.:_,= --, _, • , ,41.'`. • ' .'t. . .' '";•.-‘' f;-.";'''-• . , t.:,.'i, •••4.1,-.1',9-' -.'•I':'',7-.- - -It.--•.k•-:.. -- ...,..-..:. '.t- -t-• • •-• • -*- ••• - .sdlipt -..- t... ' 1.4,-. - .c%.•:,-,-- ,:-..--:,-. : -.!:•'•',..;,•-•%.... -4.- ,.. -. 4,, ,..,.,..lie*,:fr& ,,• . -,-....., y- , , ..•-',." !,',••0,81(. .?.-,,. 4--•,...: .: --,..-- •.,, • ."Ir. ' ''.---- itfr - .4 ::....;- -4.-•4 4,'"" '4;1•••••:- ' :".-', it" '.:4.-C-•'4,:•1.• ."'''..; - .•=4,„,,,0,4- .•_. .49:.-zr, - .. I, , - 4-./..= ,,,..,•*r•••. •' 4• -,: , --1 ',t' ' '...-,' — - :'''&`..'"--'''-' l''' jtv - ..,. ....... . 3‘ .•' ' ir....7,4,10' .. ''' .., .... ..... t...... ... ,. ...., ..,., . . . .. .. „...: - . •, - .:...„0.....:. - .-,, til W-- '7'' I_i--.;•----r -• - . - ; t.,1.7_ '-.3 1 !"' :-;';:t -- ' •-,--------=::-_----- - 7 i i•fi 1 I li -_ '',. ,-- ---.- •- 4,r-_Lr--.:7.,----- k . 11.t., ;f 1,-----. - ..' - I.% 4. -44.•••••.-.:...__-___ _______ __ . . _. _ _ - = - ...,- - -,--- - _----- - • - ... - . :- * - • * ,•4•• - _.. . • "s —_ i 4" '-' ' 4iiis • • ..,. '--•:111-1.,-..!,7, '' 'ii-f44--'s;•••.'1:'4 -.., - ..-'-'1,' '4" -- • yr. ,,,•-..:,,..._„.-.: _ .,,,. 4kt ',4-. ..fi -•.' .iii:, ,o-r.1:1, • . , . ,, . . •...A •ft.. '".......A•••• " '' ' ." 4*.*.n,...1. -,,-,' .;•'' :if, '''.--,..f*I'•'• 'et A • • 14'. . l• 4•.......... , • . . '•• .•••47.• '••.!....r.',' •.•i'''!•••• * ilib. F. ••• %ti. -- • •'•••111-'• ' V:••••'‘.". ':.•,... . ,..........,-:!;;;•.:.?,,,,F•••••:•47 ,.....,. .: tr.•r..-....., .6. . . . •• Ir ••T, • ''' Akkl' -.• *:- ,':•:4•4•4.. . — - --_- -------• -.._ . _..„. _ - - 4 ' Abic,,._ , ,„_ . ....•='' . .. __. ___.- - • k ••••-.... - '•. ..., . ' - - ''''Aiiiititintil0 '' ' - .,-. : . ''''.,,.-Z:V' ••••'•, "•':. -., • _ • -. - -.. . .. ... 2 }. ..2 ,r R .. yv. I V ♦ 1.+A' � M. ig t:'.;' 4 * Vy., ' ,.ii'i:;11,...L.,,,:"..'le'.'t/t,''... .,.,i. ':1,f24".-:,-.:.;:,,......,,,,,,`,$;.?.f.,.5, -4,.-i r ye , ' ,,. ,. �•�. 4 q`' k ; LApit,' p if' fI , J u I'I I Hoa N. Dao From: Heidi Mariani <marianiheidi@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 1:33 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: NO to Marlin Bay project! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged l A-i lTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Mr. Dao, Please don't approve the Marlin Bay building complex! With lots of families and children in the neighborhood the building with multiple units would be a nightmare and make our bay nature trails and crossing roads way more dangerous! Disasters waiting to happen! We need to protect our kids and neighbors. Please keep the neighborhood the way it's supposed to be! There is a strong community feel in Ocean Park and adding an apartment complex would make it impossible for all the neighbors too keep up that neighborly feel! As we all can see if there is an accident on one of these roads it makes commuting already dangerous and a nightmare! Last month I couldn't get to my child's school to pick him up because of an accident.This is NOT a good idea. Not for the community and definitely not for the environment. "Many of America's national forests and grasslands—collectively called the National Forest System (NFS)—face increased risks and alterations from escalating housing development on private rural lands along their boundaries. For example, many wildlife species that inhabit NFS lands also depend on adjacent private lands and can be affected by degradation of private land habitat. Increased housing development can impact the public's access to NFS lands, increase wildfire ignitions and management costs, reduce water quality, and introduce insects and diseases. A more detailed discussion of these implications can be found in Stein et al. (2007). " https://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/pubs/gtr wo78%20pg36-40.pdf Please say NO to this apartment complex! Thanks for listening!! Heidi Sardon Sent from my iPhone 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Stephanie Walker <steph.j.taylor@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 1:23 PM To: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; wgrahamvbpc@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johncoston@gmail.com; rkleinvbpc@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com; Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Day Apts - No, thank you! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To all decision makers: I am opposed to the Marlin Bay Apartment Development project. Please seriously consider the long term impacts of this size development to the area. Preservation of our Natural Resource Pleasure House Point Natural Area was only recently established as a protected area. Increasing the residential population directly adjacent to the PHP is likely to dramatically increase its visitation. Although I'm strongly in favor of making and keeping natural areas accessible to all, increased use almost always also means increased trash/litter, increased dog feces left behind, increased erosion on established trails, increased off trail use degrading the natural environment, increased potential for illegal fire, and the increased human/dog traffic will deter birds and turtles and other species that already have very little natural habitat. Flooding Ocean Park already experiences significant flooding several times each year.The current storm water run off and tidal flooding management is not effective. I am sceptical of the statements on marlinbayvb.com claiming it will redirect storm water away from the neighborhood and that it will decrease the amount of impervious area at the site. All surrounding areas also flood, so where will storm water be redirected that will not cause increased flooding? My concern is based on personal experience. Three Ships Landing Condo development's approved storm water management plan, by design, redirects their runoff into my backyard as well as several of my neighbors' yards before it reaches any storm drain. No existing Ocean Park resident or other Shore Drive neighborhood should be flooded out several times a year to accommodate additional housing. Traffic/Parking Our curbless streets without sidewalks are problematic as is. Adding more people and more cars will only increase the difficulties.The proposed parking garage may lessen the impacts but additional vehicles from guests/roommates/oversized vehicles will overflow onto our streets. Pedestrian traffic, especially across Shore Drive to the beach, will also increase. Increased frequency of triggered walk signals at traffic lights and people crossing between light cycles will back up vehicle traffic and likely increase the frequency of pedestrian vs vehicle accidents. 1 Please do not allow dollars for a select few to speak louder than common sense and the good of all. Thank you. Stephanie Walker Ocean Park home owner 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Jacobs, Edward H. <ejacobs@odu.edu> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 1:06 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com;dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com;dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Development proposal comments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello: As a homeowner in the Aeries on the Bay neighborhood for going on twenty-two years, I am writing to urge you to oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment Development that is going before the Virginia Beach Planning Commission on June 9 of this year. I object to this development primarily because a 197-unit apartment complex and 4 1/2 story parking garage would drastically damage the quality of life and environmental health of my neighborhood and the entire Shore Drive corridor. This area is already one of the most densely populated areas in Virginia Beach (indeed in Hampton Roads), and intensifying its density as greatly as the development proposes would drastically increase traffic, noise, congestion, waste, and pollution. That the proposed development would sit right across from Pleasure House Point and the Brock Environmental Center also alarms me from an environmental point of view. Historically, this area has been a key wetland and estuary guard against flooding and pollution; to our city's credit, years ago we designated Pleasure House Point as a natural preserve with the aim of attempting to recover that crucial ecological character and function of this area. I shudder to think how all the air pollution and waste-water run-off from the proposed development would degrade Pleasure House Point and the greater Lynnhaven and Elizabeth River watersheds and the oyster reefs that have so improved water quality. I beg you not to put commercial and revenue opportunities above the quality of life and the health of the environment in my neighborhood. I also object to the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments because, so far as I can see, it violates current zoning laws as well as the city's Shore Drive Corridor and Comprehensive Plans. The proposal seeks to rezone the area from PDH-1 and B-2 to B-4 mixed use on the dubious ground that the existing boat retail businesses near to it will be incorporated into the development. I see and hear no evidence from neighbors that there is any relation between the boat retails and this proposed development, so in my judgment the rezoning appeal on which the proposed development rests is invalid and may even be actionably fraudulent. Please, please vote and work to oppose the Marlin Bay Apartments development. The quality of life and environmental health of my neighborhood and the surrounding areas is direly threatened by the proposal, as is the continuity of the City's long-term development plans and indeed the fundamental rule of law in our city. Thank you for you attention and your service to our City. Sincerely, Edward Jacobs 2204 Sunvista Dr. Virginia Beach, VA 23455 757 363 0840 ejacobs( odu.edu Edward Jacobs,Ph.D. Professor of English Department of English 4030 Batten Arts&Letters Bldg. Hampton Blvd.&45th Old Dominion University Norfolk,VA 23529 tel 757 683 4028 fax 757 683 3241 ejacobs@odu.edu 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Kim Mayo <kimmayo79@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 12:09 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Opposition Marlin Bay + 2332 Pleasure House Rd. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Hoa, Please submit to Planning Council Members on my behalf as a revision to my 1 previous email. Are both hearings still 6/9? As a concerned citizen & abutter to one of the above proposed projects I'm voicing my strong opposition to 2332 Pleasure House Rd AND Marlin Bay high density residential. Like many I see that the Master Plan is not being followed. It's my understanding Inman Stricker has filed the suit below outlining various grievances that should never have been allowed to happen on WC or Windsong. I thank those petitioners. SKM C75920102118150(wordpress.com) Please adhere to the rules &vote down both of these projects to save the city from further embarrassment & litigation. Sincerely, Kim Mayo 1 Robert M.Stanton 4141 First Court Road Virginia Beach,VA 23455 H.D. Dao hdao@vbgov.com 2875 Saber St.Suite 500 Virginia Beach,VA 23452 RE: Marlin Bay Apartment Application Dear Mr. Dao, I am a long-time resident of the Shore Drive area, having moved there in the 1960's. I have seen the traffic increase dramatically over the years and now the highways are unbelievably overburdened.All intersections meet failing standards. I served as Chairman of the city's Shore Drive Advisory Committee for 10 years before I retired from that position about 10 years ago. We were consistently in opposition to increasing the density of The Shore Drive area. Not only would the density create density related issues, it would be an extremely unattractive eyesore for an otherwise beautiful neighborhood. As you know the Pleasure House Point Tract was set aside as a perpetual open space to remain undeveloped forever. Developing a project of this type this close to that beautiful open space would be a gross violation of the concept of providing open spaces such as Pleasure House Point. I urge you and your Colleagues on the staff to recommend denial of this application and I urge members of the Planning Commission to vote no. Sincerely, A41441°.°ABI Robert M.Stanton cc/George Alcaraz Steve Barnes Whitney Graham Donald Horsley Michael Inman Dee Oliver David Redmond John Coston Robyn Klein Jack Wall David Weiner Hoa N. Dao From: Maegan Swinko <maegans.cats@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 11:18 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, Hello, I am writing you about the future 197 unit Marlin Bay Apartment complex on Shore drive. I am 20 years old, was born in Virginia, and I'm very active in the community. Seeing this proposal for such a massive addition to my street is terrifying to me and many other members in the community. When considering this new addition, please take into account my thoughts and my voice from in the community. The fear comes from the potential risk of many more news-worthy accidents or even deaths on this already dangerous road. So many horrible accidents, even fatalities, have taken place on Shore drive, even in this year alone, that could be prevented by proper road markings, traffic signals, and attention from the people who have the funding to make these changes happen, instead of spending it on things to make it worse. For instance, some traffic lights on Shore drive give drivers a "green arrow" at the same time the crosswalks give a " walk " signal. This is an extreme safety threat which is confusing for newcomers and even young drivers like myself. If there were 197 more units on Shore drive, that means at least 197 more cars and pedestrians we need to protect or avoid in the case of another potential road tragedy, putting your citizens in danger. Virginia Beach is an attraction because of the beautiful sights you can't find anywhere else. The beaches and the nature bring people from all over that make this their paradise, and stay because they want to protect and conserve the beauty, rather than construct massive, expensive, eyesore buildings just for the profit at the expense of others. Where I live, I had the best view of the ocean for years- until construction shortly took over the joy of looking out my window every day. This is enough to drive away your dedicated citizens that adore this city. I look at the Ocean Front and remember the great trips I took there when I was younger and the memories made, but recently it looks deserted and filthy, and I do not wish to go anymore. This is what happens when cities focus on quantity of incomes instead of quality, and I do not wish that of my beloved Shore Drive. In recent events, due to virus scares, people were going insane about toilet paper and grocery needs, causing shortages in every local grocery store and gas station. It's hard imagining how more than 197 people would have to fend for themselves in our area if something like that happened again. For example, the gas pipeline scare. Cars were lined up into the street for days trying to fill up their tanks. That was difficult enough, but an additional 197+ vehicles would make for a death trap of Virginia Beach. 1 As someone who's profession is animal care, it breaks my heart to see our Virginia wildlife slaughtered by vehicles every day on Shore drive. Roadkill is very common around here due to the amount of cars and careless drivers, and our people are starting to add to those lives taken on this road. Please hear my voice and concerns from within your community. This complex feared and not wanted here. If you have any questions please contact me at 757-769-9035. Thanks again. Sincerely, Maegan Swinko on Shore Drive 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Linda Moore <Ibmoore757@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 11:19 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I have lived in Ocean Park since 2006 and in that time have witnessed the continuous housing growth on Shore Drive. The Marlin Bay Development is another project that is NOT in the best interest of the Ocean Park neighborhood. Our area is made up of single-family homes, duplexes and townhouses. There are NO large multifamily complexes in the heart of Ocean Park. As good stewards of our land we need to be aware of how we are causing more erosion and damage to our fragile eco-system. Pleasure House Point is just feet away from this proposed development!!! Please use your voice to STOP this rezoning and potential development and keep Ocean Park a beach community that values our land and waterways. Sincerely, Linda Moore 3633 E. Stratford Road Virginia Beach,Va. 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: John Romanus <johnmromanus@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 10:40 AM To: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; wgrahamvbpc@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmai.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; rkelinvbpc@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelderbrick.com; Hoa N. Dao; communications@opcl.org Subject: Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This email is to inform you of the problems with this project. I have been a resident of Virginia Beach for over 68 years. At age 5 I learned to fish under the Lesner Bridge and from that time till the early 1970 it remained a beautiful estuary sustaining life for the Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay. Shortly after we had to deal with the Kepone pollution condemning all shell fish harvesting for years. Next the city of Virginia beach opened the floodgates on growth allowing the next generation of pollution to develop till there was no more land to build on. This was followed by tearing down the existing canal houses only to build bigger houses with more contaminants. Sadly now that estuary is mostly dead with very little life but we have THOUSANDS of BOATS with their trash, gas, and oil littering the backwaters that were at one time a very pristine habitat. Lets now start filling in the marsh to build more Apartments. Do you really need that money for the budget? You have used all the land on the waterfront so now you will fill in the marsh to build more. This is bad stop now and maybe life will return in the next 70 years. As acting steuarts of the Lynnhaven Inlet you should be ashamed of the job you have done. John Romanus Hoa N. Dao From: scott ayers <scotta3780@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 10:05 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Proposed Marlin Bay Development Attachments: OPCL Marlin BAY opposition notes.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, On June 9th the VB Planning Commission will review an application for 197 apartment units to be built in Ocean Park. By now you have heard from many residents that the community overwhelmingly objects to the application as submitted. The attachment clearly enumerates the many reasons for the community's objection so I will not relist but I do have a couple of perspectives many of my neighbors do not. I have lived in Ocean Park for close to 40 years. 4 generations of my family have lived on the same property in Ocean Park starting in the early 1930's. From a 2 lane Shore DR to 4 lanes. One of the most dangerous roads in the Beach.Today in the morning those going to work sometimes have to wait 20 minutes to clear the intersection at Marlin Bay/Shady Oaks and Shore Drive.This past weekend was a beautiful beach weekend. Non resident cars blocked our streets and even driveways. I watched as pedestrians tried to safely scurry across Shore drive to the beach and held my breath for fear of another pedestrian fatality. The simple fact is adding 197 residences with up to 400 occupants will overwhelm Ocean Park compromising its infrastructure and quality of life. The second perspective is my membership as member of first the Bayfront Advisory Committee and now what has become the Bayfront Advisory Commission who on an 8-2 count advised Planning and Council to deny the proposed project. Let me be clear; last year after 20 years I stepped down as a commission member. For 20 years I served to protect the vision for the Shore Drive corridor as outlined by the original ULI study.The Shore Drive Corridor Plan and it's Overlay District. In fact I was involved in creation and approval of many of the documents the city now uses to guide and protect the corridor. Without question and foremost in many of the concepts applied was the principle that the corridor was primarily residential and the character of existing neighborhoods should be preserved. Maintaining density of course is critical to that goal. In working with Clay Bernick,the BAC Planning member of the committee/commission and other staff members there was heavy deliberation over the guidelines for growth hence the creation of the overlay district and it's criteria.At the time a hot topic in planning circles was mixed use where residential and neighborhood service type commercial could be integrated in the same structure .The commission was shown pictures of three story buildings with retail on the ground floor and residential above. More like a mini version of Towne Center or what's proved to be successful in Newport News. Attractive and functional.The commission gave the green light for its inclusion in the overlay guidelines. Fast forward to 2021 and a developer is trying to twist what the city and the commission envisioned as mixed use to be able to maximize density. Gateway to Virginia Beach is what as commission members we were charged by city council to protect and enhance. This project will do permanent damage to that goal. It needs to be denied as proposed and sent back to the drawing boards. One of the parcels is already zoned residential to a density that matches the highest currently existing in Ocean Park allowing a by right use that could, if properly integrated with the commercial, produce a very high end high tax dollar community of homeowners with a well designed retail center. Make no mistake the community wants the property developed but not at the cost of 197 residences,400 additional vehicles. I might add that the developers recent small unit reduction was disingenuous and they have made no serious attempt to listen to the community. I appreciate you listening to me and hope staff and the commission will put the community first not last.Thank you 1 This is a 197-unit apartment complex with a massive 4 1/2-story parking garage proposed for the corner property at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. (www.marlinbayvb.com) Preserve Our Neighborhood ! ! • The Marlin Bay Development would destroy the character of Ocean Park, a small, historic community with a strong neighborhood identity. A high-density apartment complex will set an alarming prece- dent for any future projects. • The historic Ocean Park neighborhood is composed of duplexes, townhouses and single-family homes. We have no large multifamily complexes in the heart of Ocean Park. A large, multi-story complex would negatively impact the identity and quality of life in Ocean Park. :• The proposed apartment complex has 197 units, which averages 31.77 units per acre, more than double the density of any recent Ocean Park development or any adjacent properties. •: The current lots at the proposed Marlin Bay site are zoned PDH-1 and B-2. The proposed "Conditional Use" change to B-4 Mixed Use zoning is inappropriate, as it is intended for com- bined retail and housing. The inclusion of an existing retail boat sales business makes the zoning change possible, but this retail is not `integrated' into the project as specified in the zoning language. • Other recent projects have been rezoned to B4, but at much lower density: 14.29 apartments per acre for example, not 31.77 per acre. These have been rezoned from B2 (retail) to B4 (mixed use), not PDH1 to B4. • This project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Dr. Corridor Plan. Go to OPCL.orq for information about the ways this proposal fails to comply with the City's stated plans. Both plans were adopted by the City Council and specify a goal of low density as a goal for this area. The density of this project assures adverse cascading impacts to traffic, parking, stormwater runoff, natural and cultural resources... • The Bayfront Advisory Commission, appointed by the City Council, did NOT approve the project. The project would sit directly adjacent to Pleasure House Point Natural Area: 118 quiet acres of water, tidal marsh, sandy shores and maritime forest. The Comprehensive Plan provides specific planning guidance "ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with re- gard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleas- ure House Point." Hoa N. Dao From: Wendy Simpson <wsimp64©gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 8:18 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: STOP the Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Mr. Dao, I am opposed to the Marlin Bay Apartment Development. I am a resident of Ocean Park and own a single family home. This apartment complex would not only destroy the character of my neighborhood but would also negatively impact the identity and quality of life here in Ocean Park. The proposed complex more than doubles the density of recent Ocean Park development. This project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. The Bayfront Advisory Commission did not approve the project. Need I say more? Concerned resident, Wendy Simpson of Ocean Park Sent from my iPad 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Barbara Reinhardt Vraa <breinhardtvraa13@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 7:04 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: Louis R.Jones; Louis R. Jones Subject: Oppose Marlin Bay development! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr Dao, I have been a resident of Ocean Park since 2004 when I purchased my home at 3761 Jefferson Blvd. I cannot say strenuously enough we oppose the Marlin Bay development project. It is too large! It needs a zoning change, a problem right there! It needs all kinds of waivers of building codes that were put in place to protect this residential area from disasters just like this!! The density level is way too large. Shore Drive does not need another 300-400 more cars!! Every apartment has the potential of two people and two cars. No, no and NO! Please do not allow this project Thank you, Barbara Reinhardt Vraa. Hoa N. Dao From: Stephanie Baker <smybaker@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 6:47 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: No to Zoning Changes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, As a 20-year resident of Ocean Tides Drive, and in very close proximity to the proposed Marlin Bay apartment development, I am writing to ask for your support in opposing the proposed rezoning and development at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B-2/PDH-1 to a conditional B-4 zone. While I am not opposed to all future development on this site, I do have significant concerns regarding the type of rezoning being proposed for the Marlin Bay development: •This type of apartment complex does not fit into the historic neighborhood of single family homes, duplexes, and townhomes that is Ocean Park • Large apartment complexes are clustered together near other dense-land spaces, not in small, long-established neighborhoods, making such a proposed plan incongruent with the limited footprint that exists within Ocean Park •Once the property is rezoned, the developers could further develop the property. The parcels are not under one ownership. If the Boat Sale parcel segregates itself, it could be redeveloped as a separate parcel. • My opposition is also based on these probable negative effects: o the loss of neighborhood and community character I have enjoyed for over 20 years o a decrease in the market value of my home O overcrowding on our neighboring Chesapeake Bay beach which is already very narrow o increased traffic congestion, adding to an already dangerous Shore Drive corridor I appreciate your support of local voices in preserving our community. Very respectfully. Stephanie Baker Ocean Park resident of Ocean Tides Drive Hoa N. Dao From: Andrina Fischer <solblu757@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 5:17 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Opposition to Marlin Bay Apartments proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAt1TION•This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I am writing to express opposition to the Marlin Bay Apartment Complex and ask you not to recommend approval of the zoning change that would allow its construction. My husband and I own the end unit townhouse at 3836 Ocean Tides Drive and feel that our home would arguably be one of two most negatively impacted if these apartments were to be built. The Ocean Park Civic League shared a rendering of the new design that shows the complex will still be four stories tall, and the main access to the complex will be a road just behind our house. Based on the current plan of 197 units, we feel there will be considerable traffic and noise associated with the complex. They plan to relocate the crossover, so that people who live on Ocean Tides Drive, our street, will have to drive further and make a u-turn in order to reach their homes. It appears they will also close down the access to Ocean Tides Drive/Shore Drive that many residents in the community use to reach the beach on the other side. One can only imagine the nightmare that parked cars along Marlin Bay Drive will become, with guests of the apartment complex parking along that stretch, restricting the ability of Virginia Beach residents to park there to enjoy Pleasure House Point. The height of the complex means that there will no longer be any afternoon sun along our stretch of homes, and no more privacy in our own backyards since the apartments' residents would be able to look into our homes and decks from the 3rd and 4th floors. The rendering does not show the kayak/canoe storage house that the developer had originally planned to build directly next to our home, so we are not certain if that was simply omitted or if it will still be added. The rendering does not show where waste containers from the complex will be located, and I imagine there will be several large containers if there are close to 200 apartments! We are also concerned about the negative financial impact this would have on the value of our home. With a towering apartment complex behind us, and a new road only feet from our back fence with considerable traffic morning and night, our home would be difficult to market should we decide to sell. But more importantly, this complex would negatively impact the quality of life at our house. The properties at Marlin Bay Drive should be developed in accordance with the existing zoning and City planning guidelines: townhouses, duplexes and single-family homes, not a large high-density multi-family using erroneous mixed-use rezoning. Again, please consider the negative impact this project would have on homeowners like us, but also the negative impact it would have on the neighborhood of Ocean Park as a whole. A project of that size should not be forced into such a small footprint. Sincerely, Andrina Fischer Hoa N. Dao From: Blair Horth <blair.horth@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 1:48 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Proposed Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon Mr. Dao, Thank you for your time in advance of reading my email in its entirety. My name is Blair Horth and my fiance and I are homeowners in the Ocean Park neighborhood. We actually have some history here, as well! We rented right down the street from where we purchased our home on Clipper Bay Drive from September 2018 until October 2020. We began our home search last summer and we just knew that we had to do everything we could to stay in Ocean Park. To say we have fallen in love with everything about our neighborhood is an understatement. From the ability to ride bikes on the well maintained bike paths, walk through Pleasure House Point, walk or bike ride to MANY of our favorite restaurants along Shore Drive (and give back to our local restaurants and businesses!), and spend time enjoying the bay either by walking at sunset or spending a weekend day on the water, we feel SO lucky that we are able to do all of these activities in our backyard. My fiance even proposed to me while we were on a walk through Pleasure House Point, making the neighborhood all the more special to us. After purchasing our home on the corner of Mystic Cove Drive and Clipper Bay Drive in October 2020, we quickly signed up for the Ocean Park Civic League and paid our dues. We have been looking forward to contributing to the causes that our neighborhood feels strongly about. That is what brings me to writing to you today. Over the recent months, but more intensely over the past few weeks, we have seen notices and heard the news about the proposed high density development on Marlin Bay. As a homeowner on an adjacent property to this proposed development, I have to say that I STRONGLY disagree with any motion to move this project forward. As young adults with a growing family,we chose to stay in the neighborhood because of what it stands for and what it means to us. We believe that the proposed development should occur only within the existing zoning and City Planning Guidelines. While it is a fabulous area to live, adding in high-density, multi-family homes to the parcel will absolutely and fundamentally change the neighborhood character that so many neighbors over the years have worked hard to build. The Shore Drive Corridor plans and standards that have been previously set should not be altered so a developer can make a few extra dollars. If you treat the neighbors of Ocean Park right, we will surely continue to give back to the stretch of land we love dearly. When you sit down and think about the large investment you've made as a young adult;the perfect home,the perfect neighborhood, amazing and caring neighbors,goals and plans made to stay in the area for many years to come... you have to consider the way things change and how plans can get shifted, but if it's anything you can control, well then you know for sure I'm going to do something about it. Thank you for reading and please feel free to reach out with any further questions. I am looking forward to hearing from you. A lucky Ocean Park neighbor, Blair Hort! blair.horth@gmail.com 1 (757) 763-8583 Blair Horth 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Suzanne (Carrillo) Kern <swmrfsh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 1:43 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Opposition to Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We are post to the Maryland Bay development project as proposed. the existing properties at Marlin Bay Drive should be developed in accordance with the existing zoning and City planning guidelines to include townhouses, duplexes and single-family homes, not a large high-density multi-family using erroneous mixed-use rezoning as is currently being proposed. we oppose this proposed complex because we believe the massive scale of the development will fundamentally change the character of our neighborhood. We are also concerned that it will set a terrible precedent by allowing development of an inappropriately high-density complex, which could open the door for more similar projects in the future. We are also worried for the high volume of traffic that this will bring in the already unsafe conditions on shore Drive. Best Regards, Suzanne (Carrillo) Kern 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Jason Weaver <jasonmweaver@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 12:24 PM To: Louis R. Jones; Hoa N. Dao; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com;johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleivVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have been a resident of Ocean Park for 15+ years. I am writing to you to express my opposition to the Marlin Bay Apartment Building Development that is currently scheduled to go before the Virginia Beach Planning Commission on June 9, 2021. I find it incredulous that this project would even be considered for passing. The obvious reasons are: (1) The increased vehicular traffic along Shore Drive which is already clogged with traffic. Several years ago the speed limit was decreased to 35 mph due to many unfortunate deaths going to and coming from many of the restaurants and/or bars along Shore Drive. Now you are being asked to approved an apartment community that not only would increase vehicular traffic but put the lives of many people at risk who try to cross Shore Drive ON FOOT in order to get to the Chesapeake Bay beach. Not only are these people toting small children, beach carts loaded with chairs, beach toys, refreshments, etc. The need to protect our citizens from added vehicular traffic is utmost. (2) With 197 units the area would be looking at 591 people (3 people per unit) and 394 cars (2 cars per unit). That is more people and more cars that live on 8+ blocks in this area. (3) I understand that the proposed apartment complex averages 31.77 units per acre, more than double the density of any recent Ocean Park development or any adjacent properties. (4) I understand that the current lots at the proposed Marlin Bay site are zoned PDH-1 and B-2. The proposed "Conditional Use" change to B-4 Mixed Use zoning is inappropriate, as it is intended for combined retail and housing. The inclusion of an existing retail boat sales business makes the zoning change possible, but this retail is not "integrated" into the project as specified in the zoning language. (5) I understand other recent projects have been rezoned to B-4, but at a much lower density: 14.29 apartments per acre for example, not 31.77 per acre. These have been rezoned from B2 (retail) to B4 (mixed use), not PDH1 to B4. (6) I understand that this project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. Both plans were adopted by the City Council and specify a goal of LOW DENSITY as a goal for this area. The density of this project assures adverse cascading impacts to traffic, parking, storm water runoff, natural and cultural resources. (7) I understand the Bayfront Advisory Commission, appointed by the City Council, DID NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT. (8) The project would sit directly adjacent to Pleasure House Point Natural Area. If you haven't been there, go see for yourself the 118 acres of water, tidal marsh, sandy shores and maritime forest. The Comprehensive Plan provides specific planning guidance "ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point." I do not see where this apartment complex would be a complement to this beautiful, tranquil natural area that was saved by our city. Jason Weaver 3968 W. Stratford Rd Virginia Beach, VA 23455 Email: jasonmweaver@yahoo.com Cell: 985-640-7650 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Graham Simpson <gsimp54@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 11:14 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Mr Dao, my name is Graham Simpson and I am a resident of Ocean Park in Virginia Beach. I am very concerned about the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment Development project. First and foremost, I moved to Ocean Park for the quiet and peaceful nature of the neighborhood. This project would change that. Not to mention that the zoning and comprehensive plan are not in compliance with the city plan. Secondly, the traffic on Shore Drive is already bad. We don't need to add to this problem. This traffic presents a safety issue for the many residents who walk and ride bicycles in our neighborhood. Third, our beaches are another reason that so many people moved to our neighborhood. They have more of a local feel because they are clean and not overcrowded. Adding this number of new people to our beaches will cause us to loose that local feel, increase the amount of trash, increase the number of people on our beach, and make our beaches less safe. Please consider leaving things the way they are so we can keep our beautiful Virginia Beach neighborhood the way that it is. Beautiful. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Graham Simpson. 757-560- 1193 Hoa N. Dao From: Vicky Mangan <vickyl lvabeach@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 3:25 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: STOP THE MARLIN BAY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUT-10 This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, My name is Vicky Mangan and Me and my husband, Don Mangan strongly oppose of this project and fear that the development will ruin our neighborhood.There are acres of wildlife and quiet in our community and this will change that drastically as well as tie things up with massive amounts of traffic! I chose this place to live because of the quiet and tight nit community it is. Please put us as part of the many neighbors who DO NOT WANT THIS!!! Thank you in advance!! Vicky VICKY D. MANGAN LOVE THE LIFE YOU LIVE... 1 Hoa N. Dao From: ann garner <anngarner@cox.net> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 3:10 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am not sure how this project got to this point. It should never have had any traction due to the negative impact it will have on Ocean Park. I know everyone is always looking for revenue to help the city grow. But, not this way. Why make Shore Drive worse that it is now. Shore Drive is constantly a mess, due to accidents,some being fatal. This project will add even more cars on the road. The beaches in this area are filled to capacity every weekend. Adding more nearby apartments will just add to the over crowded beaches and roads. B-4 mixed use zoning will be inappropriate and against the City's Comprehensive Plan. There is lots of land where these apartments could be built and have room for the hundreds of people. Move this development to the Court House area or beyond where there is land that won't compromise already existing developments. The city needs to address this immediately and not look at how much revenue this will bring, but how upset people will be on the Shore Drive Corridor. If this passes I am sure residents in this area will put their houses on the market. No one wants our areas to be overrun with cars, people, and possibly other undesirable acts. STOP MARLIN BAY APAARTMENTS 1 Hoa N. Dao From: John Dewhirst <jwdewhirst@widomaker.com> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 1:00 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao and Members of the Virginia Beach Planning Commission: I am a long time resident of Ocean Park, and specifically the area formerly known as Sylvan Beach. My parents purchased a Bay-front lot in 1937, and built a small cottage on the property in 1953. From 1953 until now,four generations of my family have enjoyed the relative peace and quiet of this neighborhood, using our home sometimes as a full time residence and at other times as our vacation paradise. I, my children, and now my grandchildren have spent many happy times at our home, on the beach, and in the general area. We have loved periodically visiting the busy ocean front and other area attractions, but have always been thankful to be able to return to our quiet and relatively uncrowded neighborhood community. Of course,we recognize the inevitable growth that has taken place over the years since I, as a teenager,traveled over the wooden two lane drawbridge crossing the Lynnhaven Inlet to work at my first job at a Dairy Queen on Atlantic Avenue for$1.00 an hour. We know that progress (?) and increasing population density and traffic are part and parcel of our modern world, but we have had faith that our elected and appointed government officials would work for and with us to preserve the character of our family neighborhood.That faith has been severely tested by such aberrations as the building complex which practically hangs over the otherwise beautiful new Lesner Bridge. Yes, property owners wish to maximize the value of their properties and make as much as they can when the properties are sold or developed and yes,the City of Virginia Beach is hungry for tax revenue, but at what expense to the folks who have a vested interest in preserving the character of the neighborhoods they live in.These are the folks who have supported and worked to improve the areas they live in and have paid ever increasing property taxes year after year. (My current yearly tax burden is nearly 15 times the original price of the lot my parents purchased in 1937!) It is my sincere hope, and a hope and desire of the vast majority of my neighbors,that the proposed Marlin Bay Development project will be turned down and forcefully defeated so that future development in our area can proceed in a manner fully consistent with existing planning guidance. PLEASE do not allow this proposed complex to have an inevitable and hugely negative impact on the identity and quality of our lives in Ocean Park. The very qualities that have made our community desirable for years are endangered by continued rampant development. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and concern for our future in Ocean Park. 1 Sincerely, John W. Dewhirst 3816 Jefferson Boulevard Virginia Beach,VA 23455 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Raegan <raegan.reints@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 12:29 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Stop the Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION'This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon Mr. Dao, I write to you in opposition of the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment Development on Shore Drive in Virginia Beach. I consider myself a local and have lived in the immediate vicinity of this proposed construction since 2013. One of the things I love the most about the Shore Drive area is its peaceful, escape from the traffic and tourist madness that is the rest of the city. I work as a 911 dispatcher for the city and I love the feeling that I get when driving home from work; I know that I can escape to the small beach community that I call home. Over the last couple of years it seems there are more and more tourists and new residents pushing into the Shore Drive neighborhoods. Im sure you'll remember Floatopia a couple years ago and that Chics beach was completely trashed. If you allow this apartment complex to be built, it will completely ruin the small town, beach community that we are already fighting so hard to preserve. I love where I live. I support the city and the local law enforcement and public safety professionals and the work they do to protect us. Please don't take Shore Drive away from us. Sincerely, Raegan Reints Raegan Reints 810.423.1693 Raegan.Reints(c�gmail.com 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Allie Wood <alexandrakwood95@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 10:13 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Development Opposition Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Cat JTION'This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, I am reaching out to convey my opposition to the Marlin Bay Development. As a resident of Ocean Park, I have enjoyed the quiet and peaceful neighborhood I have called home for several years. If you have not been to our beach, you should come and see how lovely it is. The quiet,the family atmosphere. And come on a summer weekend at noon. See how it's just enough families and friends. Now, imagine that beach with the Marlin Bay residents- how little beach there will be to enjoy. Oh, and the dunes are gone, as well. When there is traffic or an accident,the cars line up for miles,which is disrupting since there are only two ways to get to our development, and both are a hassle to drive to get to the other way if one way is blocked off. Imagine adding hundreds more residents with endless cars.That is not safe, or makes a walking friendly neighborhood. Even though the land they want to develop is not pretty, I would rather it be the way it is than have more people clog up the area. We need the property to be developed correctly, or people will start to leave. As someone who is buying a home in the future, I wouldn't want to stay in Ocean Park if the complex was built. But, build something that is zoned properly, like a condo, and you might just have a buyer. The project is not in compliance with the city's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan.These plans were adopted by the city council and specify a goal for low density as a goal for this area. In addition,the Bayfront Advisory Commission, appointed BY THE City Council, DID NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT. The current lots at the proposed Marlin Bay site are zoned PDH-1 and B-2. The proposed "Conditional Use" change to the B-4 Mixed Use is inappropriate, as it is intended for combined retail and housing.The inclusion of an existing retail boat sales business makes the zoning change possible, but this retail is not "integrated" in the project, as specified in the zoning language. Other recent projects have been rezoned to B4, but at much lower density: 14.29 apartments per acre for example, not 31.77 per acre. I urge you to listen to the residents of Shore Drive and concerned citizens on the matter of the Marlin Bay apartments. Thank you for your consideration, Alexandra(Allie)Wood Marketing Executive at TitleQuest alexandrakwood 05Pgmail.com 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Sarah Johnson <samajo1012@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 3:30 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: MARLIN BAY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I am writing in regard to the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment Development on the corner of Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay Dr. As a property owner in Ocean Park, I am strongly opposed to this project going forward. My concern is that the development is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the density zoning would negatively impact our quality of life due to more traffic, noise, and population. We have seen how good stewardship of land within our city can be achieved by looking at the adjacent Pleasure House Point Natural Area. By working with the State,the city of Virginia Beach was able to turn this area into a green space that is today enjoyed by countless people. This is an example of development that is in line with the Comprehensive Plan and takes into account the existing character of the surrounding area. It takes strong leadership and people who value other uses of land besides high density development to lead the way to a better quality of life for Virginia Beach residents. Please adhere to the principles set forth in the Comprehensive Plan which provides specific guidance ("ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complimentary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point.") It is my sincere hope that you will step forward and stop this development and consider an alternative use for this land that better fits our established neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Johnson Hoa N. Dao From: Grace Colombara <grace.colombara@icloud.com> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 3:15 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Preserve Ocean Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged 1 ______ CAUTION•This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, Please stop the Marlin Bay Apartment Development! I oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment Development because hundreds of more people and cars is too much for small Ocean Park and it is not in a Strategic Growth Area. Sincerely, Grace Colombara 3652 E. Stratford Rd. VB, VA 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: joankaup@aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 2:44 PM To: Louis R.Jones; Lrjones@hollomon-brown.com; Hoa N. Dao Cc: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com;johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been a resident of Ocean Park for 30+ years. I am writing to you to express my opposition to the Marlin Bay Apartment Building Development that is currently scheduled to go before the Virginia Beach Planning Commission on June 9, 2021. I find it incredulous that this project would even be considered for passing. The obvious reasons are: (1) The increased vehicular traffic along Shore Drive which is already clogged with traffic. Several years ago the speed limit was decreased to 35 mph due to many unfortunate deaths going to and coming from many of the restaurants and/or bars along Shore Drive. Now you are being asked to approved an apartment community that not only would increase vehicular traffic but put the lives of many people at risk who try to cross Shore Drive ON FOOT in order to get to the Chesapeake Bay beach. Not only are these people toting small children, beach carts loaded with chairs, beach toys, refreshments, etc., but I also observed one couple, in addition to all of this, pulling a kayak! The need to protect our citizens from added vehicular traffic is utmost. (2) Reducing the number of units to 197 does not help the increase in vehicular traffic. We would still experience a traffic increase. (3) I understand that the proposed apartment complex averages 31.77 units per acre, more than double the density of any recent Ocean Park development or any adjacent properties. (4) I understand that the current lots at the proposed Marlin Bay site are zoned PDH-1 and B-2. The proposed "Conditional Use" change to B-4 Mixed Use zoning is inappropriate, as it is intended for combined retail and housing. The inclusion of an existing retail boat sales business makes the zoning change possible, but this retail is not "integrated" into the project as specified in the zoning language. (5) I understand other recent projects have been rezoned to B-4, but at a much lower density: 14.29 apartments per acre for example, not 31.77 per acre. These have been rezoned from B2 (retail) to B4 (mixed use), not PDH1 to B4. (6) I understand that this project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. Both plans were adopted by the City Council and specify a goal of LOW DENSITY as a goal for this area. The density of this project assures adverse cascading impacts to traffic, parking, storm water runoff, natural and cultural resources. (7) I understand the Bayfront Advisory Commission, appointed by the City Council, DID NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT. (8) The project would sit directly adjacent to Pleasure House Point Natural Area. If you haven't been there, go see for yourself the 118 acres of water, tidal marsh, sandy shores and maritime forest. The Comprehensive Plan provides specific planning guidance "ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point." I do not see where this apartment complex would be a complement to this beautiful, tranquil natural area that was saved by our city. Regards, Joan Kaup 3836 Surry Road Virginia Beach, VA 23455 joankaup(c�aol.com 2 MR DAO, CITY STAFF PLANNER May 23, 2021 2875 SABRE ST, SUITE 500 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23452 EMAIL: HDao@vbgov.com RE: NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO OCEAN PARK HI: OUR NAMES ARE BOB & BARB MCCRUDDEN AND WE ARE AN OCEAN PARK HOMEOWNER & RESIDENT. WE OPPOSE THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE CURRENT ZONING FOR MARLIN BAY APARTMENTS ON SHORE DRIVE & MARLIN BAY FROM B2-PDH-1 TO CONDITIONAL B-4. THIS PROJECT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE SHORE DRIVE CORRIDOR PLAN. THE BAY FRONT ADVISORY COMMISSION DID NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS: • IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SHORE DRIVE OVERLAY A PARCEL OF 4 ACRES OR MORE CAN HAVE 36 UNITS PER ACRE WHICH IS 108 NOT 227 • ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY NEEDS TO BE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT ON PHP • PARKING SPILLING ON TO MARLIN BAY & SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS • EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE SERVING OCEAN PARK • PROXIMITY TO PLEASURE HOUSE POINT NATURAL AREA WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 4 STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH 227 UNITS WITH A 400+ CAR PARKING CAPABILITY. THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN THIS AREA IS UNCONSCIONABLE. BOB & BARB MCCRUDDEN 2333 RALEIGH AVE VIRGINIA BEACH VA 23455 EMAIL: BBMCCRUDDEN@YAHOO.COM Hoa N. Dao From: T.JOHNSON <vls2811c@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 23,2021 11:52 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: MARLING BAY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. May 23, 2021 Mr. Dao, I am writing to you in reference to the above project. I and many others in Ocean Park, are emphatically opposed to more dense housing in the Shore Drive corridor, in particular, the project being proposed at the corner of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. This proposed project will only serve to increase traffic and personnel density, and have a negative impact on the wetlands nearby. The space should be utilized as a green space project of some sort, especially with all the effort which went into the Pleasure House Point project to preserve the wetlands. The Pleasure House Point project, a joint project between the City of Virginia Beach and the State, did a marvelous job of preserving the wetlands and making the wetlands an enjoyable place to walk, observe nature and advocate/educate for the need to preserve green space and strive for renewable energy where possible. This project would just smack all that effort in the face and prove Virginia Beach as being "hypocritical" in their educational and preservation efforts. Please think this through thoroughly and come up with a better solution for the citizens of Ocean Park and Virginia Beach. Respectfully, Thomas Johnson 757.404.5588 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Andrea Lindemann <awrl95@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 2:45 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr.Dao and Planning Commission Members, I am strongly opposed to the Marlin Bay Apartment Complex development being proposed in Ocean Park.This development is outsized for this location. The area anywhere near this property,on both sides of Shore Drive,consists of town homes,duplexes and single family homes.This large apartment complex with a 4 1/2 story parking garage is wildly out of place.This massive building complex does not belong on that property and the property should not be rezoned to accommodate it.Nothing around it approaches that level of density or massive scale.The developed property should fit in with its surroundings:what should go there are duplexes,town homes,single family houses so that the new development fits in with the existing neighborhood. Both the Comprehensive Plan and the Shore Drive Design Guidelines have something solid to say about infill development.They make clear statements that infill development should be consistent with the surrounding properties and it should be at the lowest possible density.This project is neither and is not consistent with what those City approved plans lay out. For example the Staff Planner Recommendation for a recent project on Shore Dr.(3746,3744 Shore Dr.) began with this:"The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for Suburban Focus Area 1-Shore Drive Corridor by promoting compatible infill development at a density compatible to the surrounding area.The residential density of the proposed eight unit development is 14.29 per acre."This development is only several hundred feet from the current property.Another recent project on Shore Dr.at 3739 Shore Dr.which is also very close to the Marlin Bay property, included this statement from the Staff Planner:"Planning policies that apply to this request include... avoiding over- commercialization,preserving and protecting the character of the established neighborhoods and achieving the lowest reasonable density for future uses.(1-70-1-71).This project is the antithesis of those statements. Ocean Park is a unique place for us.The military sent our family all over the world as we moved so many times for military assignments.Then the time came to choose where we wanted to be instead of being told where to live. We had waited so long to do that.We lived near many beach communities:Pacific Grove,the panhandle of Florida.We have family in many beach communities:Cape May,Lewes,Cape Cod and had always thought we would go to one of those that we knew.We started staying at the Cottages on Dam Neck and started getting to know Virginia Beach.When we found Ocean Park,the search ended.The unique atmosphere,the character of Ocean Park was irresistible.We love that Ocean Park is a real neighborhood.We love that it was such an eclectic mix with no two streets the same.We love that it is small enough to know the people in the community.We love that people speak to each other on the street as a habit.I have heard versions of our experience over and over again from people of all ages-young families to retired folks.Ocean Park is special and places like it are not easily found and should not be cavalierly lost.The City of Virginia Beach should not squander the unique character of Ocean Park through inappropriate overdevelopment.The residents of Ocean Park should not have this development imposed on our neighborhood changing its character that drew us here. This large apartment complex will bring an influx of hundreds of people and a huge imposing building with a massive 397 space 4 1/2 story parking garage. It will stick out like a sore thumb.This complex doesn't belong here in this small corner of Virginia Beach.The residents don't want it.I oppose it in the strongest terms as a resident and a property owner. Please do not approve it. Sincerely, Andrea Lindemann Ocean Park Resident 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Lisa Shaughness <shaughness@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 2:22 PM Subject: Marlin Bay apartment complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioner, I am writing to express my concern about The Marlin Bay Apartment complex and the negative impact it would have on the Ocean Park Community. A high density apartment complex would cause a significant strain on the beaches, roads, and natural resources of our small community, The City's comprehensive Plan and Shore Drive Corridor Plan are in place for a reason and this project is not in compliance with these plans. During the busy summer months our streets and beaches are already very crowded and traffic on Shore Drive increases significantly. I know that change is inevitable but a change of this magnitude would have adverse effects that would harm our entire community. I respectfully request that you reconsider this project and stop the rezoning and development of the Marlin Bay Apartments. Please help to preserve the small town beach community of Ocean Park.Thank you so much for your consideration. Sincerely, Lisa Shaughness Love God, love people Resident at 2261 Woodlawn Ave Virginia Beach,VA 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Melissa Shaughness <melissa5@vt.edu> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 1:24 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Preserve Ocean Park Please! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Mr. Dao, I hope my message finds you well. I'm writing to ask that you preserve the neighborhood of Ocean Park and not allow a high density apartment complex to be built in our area.The Marlin Bay Apartment complex would negatively impact our quality of life as residents of this small community as it would double the density of any recent Ocean Park development. Ocean Park is composed of duplexes,town homes, and single family homes.Our beaches, natural resources, parking, and our roads would not be able to healthily sustain such a high density of residents in the area. This project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan.These plans are in place for a reason. In the summertime,all our neighborhood streets are already crowded with cars and our beach is a local favorite.We enjoy being able to take our dog for walks on the beach without having to worry about a high volume of people or other dogs crowding the beach. We enjoy living in this area as we have a short commute to work with little traffic on Shore Drive.We love the small, beach town feel of our neighborhood.We understand that change is a part of life, but this change would be to the detriment of our entire community.We hope you'll consider our perspective and please stop the rezoning and development of the Marlin Bay Apartments.Thank you for your time and consideration. Melissa Shaughness, DVM 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Helen Mccollum <hmccolluml@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 12:45 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: The Marlin Bay Development - A catastrophe waiting to happen Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr Dao Please, Please look at this area on a MAP and you will see there is not enough space for more autos on Shore Drive AND unless you/or God enlarges/adds to the land area you and we all will be looking/waiting for a catastrophe. Take a look at the map; there are only two ways out of this area and all the autos are on the same road out of here just during a normal morning and evening home from work the traffic is a nightmare; AND during a recent couple of accidents at each end of Shore Dr. traffic was at a halt for hours. As I asked, look at the map. This area is surrounded by WATER and one way out is Great Neck and the other North Hampton Blvd. As you can see, should a catastrophe happen we would all be sitting in the traffic and most would not make it out And as to a huge catastrophe, what about the single life of one of our neighbors calling for an an ambulance or the ambulance trying to drive through the HALTED TRAFFIC... shall we call on you to move this traffic...and. save a life As I said earlier in this memo: there is NO more land available to enlarge the road. I simply do not understand why Virginia Beach is so in need of more tax money at the risk of putting thousands of peoples lives at risk.. Helen McCollum Resident of Ocean Park I. Hoa N. Dao From: Pat Mirani <pmirani0730@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 11:52 AM To: dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; George Alcaraz; Hoa N. Dao;jckwall@aol.com; John Coston; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; Robyn R Klein;Whitney Graham Cc: Aaron R. Rouse; Barbara Henley; Bob M. Dyer; Guy K. Tower;Jessica P. Abbott;James L.Wood;John Moss; Louis R.Jones; Michael Berlucchi; Rosemary C.Wilson; Sabrina D. Wooten Subject: Proposed Marlin Bay Apartment Complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao and Virginia Beach Planning Commission Members: I live in the Ocean Park section of Virginia Beach and last year I sent a letter to City Council members, Planning Commission members and the Bayfront Advisory Committee members,voicing my concerns about the planned Marlin Bay apartment development. Since then, more and more of my neighbors have voiced similar concerns and the development has now been reduced in number from 227 units to 197. While this is encouraging,this number is still way too high and will have a negative impact on this already densely populated area, which I believe may already be the most densely populated area in Virginia Beach. Please hear my concerns, and those of my neighbors, and do not move forward with this proposal. The density will impact traffic on Shore Drive, which is already very busy, not only with automobiles, motorcycles and bicycles, but foot traffic, crossing Shore Drive to the beach. Sadly,the 3S-mph speed limit in place is rarely adhered to. Since I moved here in 2003, I have seen this happen with the addition of several high rises and the Westminster Canterbury expansion. It will also impact schools, emergency services, parking and infrastructure. Ocean Park has a distinct character and "feel" — beach-loving families with strong community interest and relationships and the addition of an apartment complex is just not welcome. We are the tax payers and deserve the right to keep it that way. In addition: • This will set a precedent for future unwanted development • The change to B-4 zoning is not appropriate,since it is intended for mixed retail and housing (the existing retail boat sales business is not integrated into the project). • I understand the project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan (which appears to be stalled). From the City's Comprehensive Plan: "The planning policies that apply to the entire Shore Drive Corridor and Bayfront Communities are: - Preserve and protect the character of the established neighborhoods -Achieve the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses." page (1-71)" • The Bayfront Advisory Commission, appointed by the City Council, did not approve the project. I do realize there are many important issues of concern facing our City at this time, but please make this project and my neighborhood's concerns top priority. I remember how our community's voice was heard some years ago,when the 1 Pleasure House Point Natural Area was in danger of becoming a mixed use, high density development. Now we have a beautiful park to enjoy, but this project would sit directly adjacent to it. While I am not opposed to development of this property, I am opposed to another residential addition here. I feel Ocean Park and the surrounding area is over-developed already.Surely there are other options more in line with the quality of life our Community deserves. Thank you. Sincerely, Patricia Mirani 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Alexander Ottaviani <aottaviani57@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I strongly oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment Development project. This project will degrade the Ocean Park neighborhood, massively increase an already dense concentration of Shore Drive traffic and potentially lower Ocean Park home values. Moving forward with this development will ruin the character of a long standing community. Sincerely, Alex Ottaviani 2249 Powhatan Ave Virginia Beach,VA 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Andrea Ware <andrea.ware103@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 10:18 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: STOP MARLIN BAY APARTMENTS Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I would like to voice my opinion on the opposing of the Marlin Bay apartment development. This community is not designed to supposed the influx of people a multi unit apartment complex will bring. Trying to get out of the neighborhood into shore drive is already difficult, forget trying to cross the road, now to add 187 more units with multiple cars per unit. This development will destroy the charm and history of Chics beach. Regards, Andrea M.Ware Homeowner in Aries by the Bay. Sent from my iPhone 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Margaret Inge <mingel @cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:29 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Proposed Marlin Bay Apartment Complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE do NOT approve the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment Complex in Ocean Park. This development far exceeds the appropriate density for our neighborhood; will cause significant traffic and parking issues (in spite of what the developer says); will fundamentally change the nature and character of our neighborhood and will set a terrible precedent for inappropriately high density along Shore Drive. Our neighborhood is unique and beloved for its character. That special character has been enshrined by the City's Comprehensive and Shore Drive Corridor Plans. We already have problems with over building within the current zoning guidelines. Permitting zoning changes to accommodate a huge project like this will greatly negatively affect the quality of life in Ocean Park. We implore you NOT to approve it. Margaret Inge Shore Drive 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Debbie Blankman <deblankman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 7:41 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Ocean Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE LIMIT development in Ocean Park. As a resident of Baylake Pines, right on Shore Drive, the traffic has exponentially become heavier/worse over the 8+ years we've been here. Motorcycles rev their engines, other loud vehicles and trucks are disturbing at all hours throughout the year, but especially in summer. An aggressive and speeding drivers seem the norm. I'm begging you to also consider a mobile speed monitor to help insist people slow down! The accident on April 21 by a speeder who died in the median was deeply disturbing as well. I hate to say that I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. Debbie Blankman & Jeff Hutton Hoa N. Dao From: Devin West <devinwest1984@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 4:13 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao My name is Devin West. I am a homeowner in Ocean Park. My Address is 3708 E Stratford Rd. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B4. I do not oppose all development in the area, but it needs to be in the best interest of the community and quality of life in ocean park. I understand that some modest changes were presented to the bayfront commission earlier this month.These changes had very little effect on the density of the development. They were not enough.A less dense condo complex would be a more appropriate use of the space. • According to the Shore Dr overlay, a parcel of land of 4 acres or more can have 36 units per acre,which is 108, not 227. • A full environmental study needs to be performed,to determine the impact on the Pleasure House Point Natural Area. The assertion that the project will have less environmental impact and lower volume of runoff than the existing structures is not logical. Further investigation is needed... • Parking is already a problem in the area and it is likely that street parking will spill onto marlin bay and the surrounding neighborhoods, including mine. • The impact to emergency response, including EMS and Fire.The area is already dense and has experienced multiple fires in recent history. As an EMS volunteer this really worries me. I want make sure any development is fully thought out in regards to public safety. • I do not believe this development is in line with the Virginia Beach comprehensive plan. Thank you for your time and consideration, I know the city and its officials are under considerable stress right now and as a resident, I appreciate the job that you are all doing. If you have any questions,feel free to reach out to me via email or phone 757-718-1625 Best Regards, Devin West 757-718-1625 1 From: Carol Commander To: Hoa N.Dao Subject: no space for this development Date: Wednesday,May 19,2021 3:08:23 PM Attachments: image002.pnq CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao: I am a homeowner and have lived in Ocean Park since 2001. Since that time the traffic and subsequent accidents have grown substantially. I am writing to STRONGLY OPPOSE rezoning for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments. This development would diminish quality of life for us! Please carefully review my reasons behind my strong opposition: * The project is too large and too dense. 31 units per acre is more than twice as dense as any recent neighborhood development. * Any parking garage, not to mention a 4 1/2 story building, is not in line with the character of Ocean Park. * As you know = THE PROJECT FAILED TO RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE BAYFRONT ADVISORY COMMISSION, a group appointed by the City Council. This alone should be reason enough to reject rezoning. * The impact to traffic, parking, storm water runoff, congestion, and environmental quality is a step backward for Virginia Beach and Ocean Park. Please show Ocean Park residents that our area is not controlled by big developers by rejecting the proposed rezoning. Thank you for your continued service to our area. Carol Commander 757-651-2100 3800 Three Ships Landing/Va Beach, 23455 Carol Commander Director of Sales-Tidewater Communications,LLC WAFX-FM I WNOR-FM WJOI-AM ITCI Interactive 870 Greenbrier Circle, Suite 399 Chesapeake,VA 23320 Office:(757)366-9900 Ext.3030 Cell: (757) 651-2100 https://fm99.com/media-kit/ httos://1069thefox.com/media-kit/httos://1230wjoi.com/media-kit/ j -99 trcl tNURACTIVF This email message, including attachments,may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this in error,please delete it. Saga Communications, Inc. and all its subsidiaries and stations that it owns or operates prohibit all forms of discrimination in advertising contracts. We do not, and shall not, discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity,or gender regarding advertising practices.All advertising agencies warrant,where applicable,that all radio commercials provided to our stations are properly licensed to be broadcast on radio stations and the associated internet streams. Hoa N. Dao From: mlnieman@verizon.net Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 2:40 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao As a resident of Ocean Park for nearly 30 years I am writing to you to express my concern about the Marlin Bay development project. I believe that rezoning at this time is not what this area needs. I have no initial problem with redevelopment but I believe that this development with a large parking structure and 197 units will negatively impact the community. Aside from the additional traffic on the already overcrowded shore Drive corridor, I believe there will be negative consequences to the natural resources and open spaces of pleasure House point. It is my understanding that this project is not in compliance with the cities comprehensive plan or the shore Drive corridor plan. I would hope that the city planners would take another eagle eyed look at this project and its impact not only on the current residents of Ocean park but on future development that may be impacted by the approval of this complex. Thank you for listening to my concerns. Mary L Nieman 2245 Woodlawn Ave. Virginia Beach, 23455 Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Jeff Kimball <jeff.kimballl @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:53 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: I oppose rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I have owned a home at 2173 Woodlawn Avenue in Ocean Park continuously since 1995. I am writing to STRONGLY OPPOSE rezoning for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments. In short,the proposed development would diminish quality of life for taxpaying homeowners in Ocean Park for the following reasons: -The project is too large and too dense. A density of more than 31 units per acre is more than twice as dense as any recent neighborhood development. -Any parking garage, not to mention a 4 1/2 story behemoth, is not in line with the character of Ocean Park. -The character of Ocean Park is its draw. Duplexes,townhouses, and single family homes define the neighborhood. A massive apartment complex is not in line with the neighborhood. -THE PROJECT FAILED TO RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE BAYFRONT ADVISORY COMMISSION, a group appointed by the City Council.This alone should be reason enough to reject rezoning. -The impact to traffic, parking, storm water runoff, congestion, and environmental quality is a step backward for Virginia Beach and Ocean Park. Please show Ocean Park residents that the city is not controlled by big developers by rejecting the proposed rezoning. Thank you for your service and for your time. Sincerely, Jeff Kimball 757-343-5783 1 Hoa Dao Current Planning Manager/Planning Evaluation Coordinator 2875 Sabre St. Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Mr. Dao, My wife and I are opposed to the change in Zoning to accommodate the proposed creation of the 'Marlin Bay Apartments' building to be located on the corner of Marlin Bay and Shore Drive. The addition of yet another multifamily structure, similar in scope of the 'Overture Adult Apartments', in the Shore Drive Corridor will further dilute the single-family home community that is the core, the charm and the ownership value of Ocean Park. Where 'The Signature at West Neck' in Virginia Beach was a community built around a premier golf course, the golf course closed in 2019, and the community lost the key amenity that drove housing sales. The existing homeowner's property is subsequently devalued, as it is no longer a golfing community. The City's single-family neighborhoods - key amenity- is their individual `community'. For most, like us, choosing an established neighborhood with permanent residents, invested in property ownership is what drives the individual choice to buy-in and to plant deep roots. A commitment that requires a long-term mortgage and obligates reliable real estate tax revenue. In exchange for those paid real estate taxes, there is an expectation the City will support its residents and provide common services such as complete sidewalks, and improved storm drains, which have been promised for over 20 years, in Ocean Park, by the way. Where long term apartment renters may not have the full investment of an 'owner', they are temporary as compared to a mortgage holder and typically do not have the same obligation or motivation to improve the property they live in. As proposed, the apartments will be managed as their own entity, a civic island of their own within the political boundaries of Ocean Park. Regrettably, I foresee a contentious and non- participatory relationship that will most likely exist between these potential new neighbors. The location itself, is adjacent to the Pleasure House Point reserve which continues to become a popular destination for outdoor enthusiasts. The quiet simplicity of the area will be broken with the bustle of apartments dwellers. On street parking, as not lot is provided, for this amenity will also be challenged. 1 Personally I fear that the 1400+ homes in Ocean Park will be devalued as density is disproportionately increased. As you are aware, Ocean Park objected to, and was successful in being excluded in a Short Term 'Overlay' district, keeping the vacationing property choices further east to the Ocean Front. Here to, the motivation was to maintain the community as permanent and not transient. From my perspective, I understand the motivation to develop the property and profit from it. I also clearly see the City's desire to have an increase tax revenue base from a more densely populated area. As I am an individual with little influence, my hope is to have an advocate in the Planning Administration and Commission to see my motivation to maintain this community in the form that it currently and has historically existed; stable, permanent and with appreciating value. Please recommend its defeat to the Commission and Council. Respectfully, Paul and Cathy Schubert Ocean Park (circa 1999) 2249 Sunvista Drive Virginia Beach, VA 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Christopher Sardon <sardonc@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 3:36 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Mr. Dao, I want to write to you to express my opposition towards the Marlin Bay Development. I live in Three Ships Landing which is directly across shore drive from the proposed development.The magnitude of this proposal is far too large for this neighborhood.The allure of the ocean park neighborhood is the small,family friendly feel.This is why this neighborhood is so desirable. By adding a large number of apartments, our already overcrowded beaches will become unusable for families such as mine.The proposition of changing the zoning in our neighborhood just so that an apartment complex can get built is absurd and makes me wonder who is financially benefiting from this? I can assure you, it would not be the families already in this neighborhood that will be benefiting. As a board member of Three Ships Landing, I can speak for many members in our community that don't approve of this project. We aren't against all developments in this location, but the magnitude of this project would destroy the reason people move to this neighborhood. Additionally, there are already a lot of car accidents along shore drive, adding a large amount of people who aren't aware of all the children playing in the neighborhood would be a recipe for disaster. Once again, I want to express that I am vehemently against this proposed development! A few townhomes would be a much better use of this area and would maintain the family oriented, safe neighborhood that we all love. Thanks for your time, Chris Sardon Hoa N. Dao From: Kristin Woolverton <kristinnoel423@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 2:19 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Do Not Approve Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I'm writing to you today to let you know the Marlin Bay Apartment Development is NOT wanted in our neighborhood. I believe that this large development will fundamentally change the nature and character of our neighborhood. It will set a terrible precedent for inappropriately high density that could open the door for more similar projects in the future. The properties at Marlin Bay Drive should be developed in accordance with the existing zoning and City planning guidelines: townhouses, duplexes and single-family homes, not a large high-density multi-family using erroneous mixed-use rezoning. I'm asking you to please oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment Development. Sincerely, Ocean Park homeowner Hoa N. Dao From: randolph wise <vzesjxc3@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 2:11 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao: My name is Randolph Wise and I am an Ocean Park homeowner. I strongly oppose the proposed subject development. It is not in compliance with the either the City's Comprehensive Plan nor the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. Please don't ruin my neighborhood. Sincerely yours, Randolph Wise 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Kristin Temple <kristinw_423@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 1:53 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Preserve the Ocean Park Neighborhood Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Mr. Dao, I'm writing you today to let you know the Marlin Bay Apartment Development is NOT wanted in our neighborhood. I live two blocks away from where these will be built and do not want to see our side of the Lesner go from the cozy neighborhood it currently is, to a bunch of developments and high-rise buildings. The traffic of Shore Dr is already crazy enough without adding an additional 300+ people. I'm asking you to please oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment Development and keep Ocean Park the small, close knit neighborhood it currently is. Thank you, Kristin 19 May 2021 Mr. Dao Planning Manager/Planning Evaluation Coordinator 2875 Sabre St. Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 RE: Marlin Bay Apartments/Rezoning Dear Sir, I have lived in Ocean Park for over 30 years. During this time, it has grown as a vibrant neighborhood with a wonderful blend of families and individuals. Its proximity to Natural areas, the beach and Local businesses as well as being in a great school district make it a desireable place to live and raise a family. I am strongly opposed to the proposed Marlin Bay apartment development. I am concerned with the sheer volume of people and autos that will impact our neighborhood adversely.The traffic on Shore Drive at the proposed area is already overwhelming, including recent fatalities of drivers and pedestrians. Pleasure House Point natural area will be directly across the street.As part of the Civic League that assists in the Adopt A Spot that cares for PHP, I have seen the impact increased use has on this fragile environment including trash, pet feces,and disturbance of wildlife. Ocean Park is a wonderful place with families just starting out and growing, retirees and pretty much everyone in between.Several Hundred rental units will undoubtedly tip the balance of the neighborhood in a negative and permanent way. Say NO to this project i Mark Faust 19 May 2021 Mr. Dao Planning Manager/Planning Evaluation Coordinator 2875 Sabre Street Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 RE: Marlin Bay Apartments/ Rezoning Dear Sir: My husband and I live adjacent to the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments and rezoning of the properties adjacent to it. We would like to express how strongly opposed we are to both the project and the rezoning, based upon the severe increase in density and subsequent traffic problems as well as parking concerns. Our neighborhood already struggles with sufficient street parking. As for traffic, it is not yet tourist season but we have already witnessed a surge in accidents in nearby intersections. We have lived here a long time, watching the development as it decreases the green spaces around us. We live across from the Pleasure House Point Natural Area and conduct the Adopt-A-Spot cleanups on behalf of the Ocean Park Civic League. In this capacity, we see the stress that increased traffic in the park (trash, unauthorized use of the space, uncollected dog feces, etc.) puts upon this area. An influx of the numbers of people in an apartment complex of this size would, most assuredly, wreak significant damage on this precious and vital part of our neighborhood. We therefore urge you and the other members to vote no to the rezoning for the purposes of rental properties at this location. Respectfully, .7 -)7 • Mary E. Faust 3857 Ocean Tides Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23455 757-647-1970 • May 20,2021 Barbara W. O'Neal 3845 Surry Road Virginia Beach,Va. 23455 City of Virginia. Beach Department of Planning 2875 Sabre Street Suite 500 Virginia Beach,Virginia 23452 Attn: Mr. Hoa Dao Re: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Ocean Park Dear Mr. Dao: As a resident and property owner in Ocean Park for over thirty years,I've seen plenty of changes to this very unique neighborhood during that time and the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment project with its 197 apartment units,is the last thing that should ever be constructed, let alone even considered, for Ocean Park. The proposed 197-unit apartment complex,with its 4-1/2 story parking garage, along with its density of 31.8 units per acre,is in no way, compatible with the existing character of the residential uses in the surrounding area and fails to meet the criteria required by the City's Comprehensive and Shore Drive Corridor Plans. The Bayfront Advisory Commission was absolutely correct to reject the design for this project as it is incompatible with the Design Guidelines for Shore Drive. There is already way too much traffic,too much pavement,too much on street parking, too much development,too much runoff,too much density, etc. and this tiny Ocean Park neighborhood just can't stand anymore. This is the wrong development,with the wrong design,at the wrong time and most importantly,in the wrong place. Understandably,I strongly oppose the approval of the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment project for the reasons stated above and respectfully request the City of Virginia Beach do the same. Sincerely, 6etil-Lakct, bi) vfirQ0 Barbara W. O'Neal CC: Mr. George Alcaraz Mr. Steve Barnes Mr. Whitney graham Mr. Donald Horsley Mr. Michael Inman Ms.Dee Oliver ✓ Mr. David Redmond Mr.John H. Coston Ms. Robyn R. Klein Mr.Jack Wall Mr. David Weiner 23(6 Kingb;td lane ripiria Mach/ 1# Ao-jApa_i Pilr. Dao Cit.stiv ?Igniter .2215- Sabre at, Sulitioo Oeach, Vt? ‘230-2- (Dear tiOao I have been c re5661i Ocean PorK elnee 1977, ropros 4he Markt; day flprirnint Devciopmed- and th5 tegnin3 are (Arcady e de" compurity! t lag muIfr-aici would negtlikly impov. 411e ?darkly and of in Own ?aN. I -haft, toyed tiyji here, .tir ;demi years, but bare 5ee41 i1 becoo my/Jed wb more Rpm petio16 and 4he1r lefsj Ora .1i4Re trPPe, noise no late, +o parK your carek, caft4 iffOne well Tic pied- 15 not in conTliarga vt4h Comprehe&ivr Plan or iht,Shore, Dr.Corricior ?In. Pea , 8110W ific5 UNIX, Mali/ 11151orie Comm" 40 remain +ha+ way. Thank you 3ircereity, Ply115 17iity May 22, 2021 Mr. Dao Virginia Beach City Staff Planner 2875 Sabre Street,Suite 500 Virginia Beach,VA. 23452 Re: Proposed Marlin Bay Development,Ocean Park Dear Mr. Dao: Over the last year and a half,we have heard that the property along Shore Drive and Marlin Bay which includes the Browning and Lynnhaven Marine property was going to be developed into residential housing. Recently,the project became a major concern,when it was announced that the proposed development was going to be submitted to the City Planning Commission in June with the request for rezoning that would double the allowable units per acre. As residents of Ocean Park and Baylake Pines for over 40 years,we strongly recommend that the Commission "REJECT"this rezoning/density increase request.The following issues hopefully support our position: 1- The City spends a great deal of money to deal with flooding and potential hurricane problems. Increasing density along the Shore Drive corridor compounds the problem in case evacuation is ordered/required. High tides currently flood large portions of Pleasure Point. 2- The project is going to result in a considerable amount of impenetrable surfaces(roofs, drive-ways, sidewalks, parking spaces, swimming pool area,etc.). There did not appear to be a retention pond planned to collect the run-off. Allowing this water/debris to end up in the Lynnhaven Inlet would negate a great deal of progress that has been achieved in recent years. 3- The proposed apartment complex has 200 units which equates to 400 plus occupants(not including guess) and probable 250 cars. Shore Drive becomes a large issue/hazard in crossing to walk to the beach and a sizable amount of vehicle traffic getting on and off Shore Drive adds congestion. Thank you in advance for rejecting the rezoning of the Marlin Bay Development. Tom &Alice Leggett 3800 Dupont Cir.#305 Virginia Beach,VA. May 25, 2021 Virginia Beach Planning &Community Development Planning Administration Division Attn: Mr. Hoe Dao,Current Planning Manager/Planning Evaluation Coordinator 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach,VA 23452 Mr. Dao, Thank you for your time in advance of reading my letter in its entirety. My name is Blair Horth and my fiancé and I are homeowners in the Ocean Park neighborhood.We actually have some history here, as well! We rented right down the street from where we purchased our home on Clipper Bay Drive from September 2018 until October 2020.We began our home search last summer and we just knew that we had to do everything we could to stay in Ocean Park.To say we have fallen in love with everything about our neighborhood is an understatement. From the ability to ride bikes on the well maintained bike paths, walk through Pleasure House Point, walk or bike ride to MANY of our favorite restaurants along Shore Drive (and give back to our local restaurants and businesses!), and spend time enjoying the bay either by walking at sunset or spending a weekend day on the water,we feel SO lucky that we are able to do all of these activities in our backyard. My fiancé even proposed to me while we were on a walk through the paths of Pleasure House Point, making the neighborhood even more special to us. After purchasing our home on the corner of Mystic Cove Drive and Clipper Bay Drive in October 2020, we quickly signed up for the Ocean Park Civic League and paid our dues. We have been looking forward to contributing to the causes that our neighborhood feels strongly about. That is what brings me to writing to you today. Over the recent months, but more intensely over the past few weeks, we have seen notices and heard the news about the proposed high- density development on Marlin Bay. As a homeowner on an adjacent property to this proposed development, I have to say that I STRONGLY disagree with any motion to move this project forward.As young adults with a growing family,we chose to stay in the neighborhood because of what it stands for and what it means to us. We believe that the proposed development should occur only within the existing zoning and City Planning Guidelines.While it is a fabulous area to live,adding in high-density, multi-family homes to the parcel will absolutely and fundamentally change the neighborhood character that so many neighbors over the years have worked hard to build.The Shore Drive Corridor plans and standards that have been previously set should not be altered so a developer can make a few extra dollars. If you treat the neighbors of Ocean Park right,we will surely continue to give back to the stretch of land we love dearly. When you sit down and think about the large investment you've made as a young adult; the perfect home, the perfect neighborhood, amazing and caring neighbors, goals and plans made to stay in the area for many years to come... you have to consider the way things change and how plans can get shifted,but if it's anything you can control,well then you know for sure I'm going to do something about it. Thank you for reading and please feel free to reach out with any further questions. I am looking forward to hearing from you. A lucky Ocean Park neighbor, Blair Horth Blair horth©gmail.com (757) 763-8583 DATE No . 78/100 3--c) \\ Qu, Th "sue 1 �S v 6� 1),.... � - l�-���or M\:_sc, er,?, -- Ca�SS USI.Q S \._,-_,, 41114,. v\ 44.\cL_ c)3t--\)\ 0L-s)-- 1 VS\ - 3\sk\r-Q - C 4;: k.AD � � �� a DATE N o . 80/100 ------1 , , 1 � r\Q_ �._. �� ._.7 �. Q. _ , `� cm \X\ \i`,- ! ?aC; \I\i1A i S), '•\ c,,S.4.,&Str:,..St- ,X__) .?--i\i\SI ‘ It.cAQ -)•-,\/- .3\ . \-- .2) \)3c s`\.1-c---1Th \i� C_C u —,:tea Us) © 5 - 6 \t\sAa ... :k.. .c 6:5-,,cv, -f\k.(:) .1 +.1 --)._JYTh <:: \0 SU,. Cam. CD — 'l..1i\i'l ) S ©t.�1.. ;?iS._ ,`y k.),,,, LADc 6 - c)_--eon D DATE ]T o . 81/100 N\ J\1 `-D , 3,0 Q_ aSsi\ Tc\JA • R,Q_ Nc-CM 0 v.) S 0. S 1;,ac\ N f+trr‘o 'c` \iPt. nTh ' \(--s&-0 °rLf -i-A-1\QJ-JA Qt./v4i) \i\r,Q S-% \Lk. y Ya, C_.3\ %.-9-x0% - � t2i. (D ..c.2 4kk, �� � - \ DATE No 82/100 I ki° -PAt7 o W S aU F - � i S _ 1S moo _ 1 � -*AS? \-YZ) C:)<X , Q -1%S1 G \/6-S1_ ik ri/a p.S\C\0. \ Cam. ZQ.).r\ V sQ_A2J I. ©-A -- \N\ us. Al NT-LN -4b Y\e�. ova old 1 ALP S Hoa N. Dao From: Jamie Mountain <jamiemountain1005@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,August 19, 2021 9:26 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: NO WAY MARLIN BAY Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION•This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a frequent visitor/local to the Ocean Park community and am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Marlin Bay development. The developer is requesting a zoning change to allow for a higher density development than what exists in the community. I strongly feel this will negatively impact the character and charm in our community and is unlike existing structures in our area. I do feel that development in that lot is beneficial, however any solutions should be consistent with the existing policies, and therefore community. I strongly hope the council does not approve this zoning change and continue to ensure development along the Shore Dr corridor remains consistent with the overall neighborhood. In addition to changing the feel of our close-knit community,this development would be located directly across the street from Pleasure House Point, a nature preserve.The density of the proposed development would dramatically increase traffic along Marlin Bay Ave which parallels the park.The city has done a tremendous favor in preserving that area that is already a main attraction for the area. My concern with increased residents would be higher chances for trash, noise pollution, and other issues detrimental to the preserve. Thank you for listening to my concerns. I hope you all will help maintain the local charm that is Ocean Park. -Jamie Mountain 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Brian <bkloeker@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 5:20 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Development on Shore Drive Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I'm writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Marlin Bay development on Shore Drive. As a resident of Ocean Park, I'm not opposed to all development. I am however opposed to development that is not consistent with the current planning guidance or character of the neighborhood in which I live. By City Council's own Comprehensive Plan laid out in 2017, "Infill development on small vacant parcels within an existing neighborhood or on parcels being redeveloped should be compatible with the existing development around it. Designing a structure that is scaled and proportioned with surrounding development is typically more difficult than utilizing a design that simply fits the site and meets zoning regulations. The result, however, is a structure compatible with the neighborhood with respect to land use and design, and will give the impression to those who pass by that it has always been part of the original development." In addition "New residential development on larger parcels should be consistent with the character of any residential uses in the surrounding area, as well as consistent with the guiding planning principles for the Suburban Area." "Residential density in the Suburban Area should be low to medium where the surrounding land use patterns and densities are appropriate for such." The proposed development is not aligned with these guiding principles. This project is NOT consistent with the residential area around it. The complex is predominantly 4 stories which will tower over the townhouses adjacent. The 4 1/2 story parking garage will now be plainly visible over the 3 story portion of the complex. Furthermore the project has 31.77 units per acre. This is more than double the density of anything built nearby. Recent projects in Ocean Park have been 14 units per acre. This is NOT the lowest reasonable density called for in the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan. I also have serious concerns about the impact to the Pleasure House Point Nature Preserve, the increase in density to local schools, and increased traffic to the local beaches. This project would bring hundreds of people and cars which will negatively impact the fragile wetland environment of the nearby preserve. Schools would need to be resized. The local beaches are already severely impacted by high usage, erosion, and lack of funding for replenishment. i I, along with the vast majority of citizens of Ocean Park strongly oppose the Marlin Bay Development. I implore you to vote with the residents of Ocean Park and vote NO on Marlin Bay. Warmest Regards, Brian Kloeker, PE 3805 Long Ship CT Virginia Beach, VA 23455 bkloeker@gmail.com 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Ken Yagelski <ken@yagelski.com> Sent: Saturday,August 7, 2021 8:30 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: No Way Marlin Bay! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, Mr. Dao. Much time has passed since the original application and delays by the developer have postponed a final decision by the governing entities. However, we remain steadfast against the proposed Marlin Bay apartment complex development. As residents of the beautiful Ocean Park neighborhood, we oppose the pending request to increase density and rezone the area at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4 for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments. We are not opposed to development for Virginia Beach and the Shore Drive area, but we want to make certain that it improves the community and quality of life for everyone that is affected.That is not the case with this proposal. Regards, Ken and Laura Yagelski East Stratford Drive 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Jen Kapp <jen.kapp.13@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 1:27 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Opposition to Marlin Bay by Resident Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged • CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao and Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing to you today on behalf of my husband and myself, both current residents of the Ocean Park neighborhood in Virginia Beach,to express our opposition to the Marlin Bay Apartments development. As residents of this neighborhood we find this potential development troubling for a number of reasons. The largest reason is that it poses an outright safety risk. The infrastructure of this area is already clearly taxed by the large population already utilizing it.The most striking example of this being the grisly accident that happened in August of 2020, when a young father was struck by a car on Shore drive. This happened nearby to our house, and I can confirm that I still frequently see people continuing to jaywalk across that street under dangerous conditions. I believe this is because there is no crosswalk, nor even a continuous sidewalk, within an intuitive distance of the two busy restaurants and the beach access on that block. However,there are even further concerns regarding infrastructure. Not long after moving to our house in July of 2020, one of the nearby transformers, on a pole within feet of our house, caught on fire after a storm.The fire was put out, and the transformer repaired to the point of functioning. However,that transformer, like many in the area, is on a very old and weathered looking post that seems like it could be knocked over or catch fire again if the wind were to blow the wrong way. How could such a flimsy electrical system also safely support the power demands of hundreds of new residents? My husband and I also feel that this area could be better utilized by serving the business needs of current residents. For example,there are very little fast casual restaurants, urgent/primary care offices, or sports equipment stores within a fifteen minute drive of that site. Creating a commercial real estate development could provide further opportunities for small businesses that could both fill a need of current residents and create a taxable income stream without increasing the population so drastically.That income stream would also enable the city and local business owners to capitalize on the increasing numbers of tourists flocking to the area. A final reason that we oppose this development, is that it does not fit the character of the neighborhood. This neighborhood currently feels very connected to nature,with two and three story houses tucked between native plants and oak trees. Currently, it melts very naturally into Pleasure House Point Park, one of the gems of the city.To build a four story monstrosity immediately adjacent to the park would destroy the interconnected appeal of the area. Because of all of this, we strongly oppose this development. We hope you will listen to our voices along with the many, many other voices of the neighborhood and will vote to oppose this development. We really love this neighborhood. We feel it is very special and that as it continues to grow, its special charm increases the draw of the city as a whole. 1 Thank you so much for your time and attention to our concerns. I apologize if I have been the written form of long- winded. Please feel free to reach out for any elaboration, and thank you so much for the work you do to keep our city running and to make it better. Sincerely, Jennifer Gregoire jen.kapp.l3@gmail.com 703.789.0010 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Rebecca Goehausen <rebeccalgoehausen@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 4:04 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Please Say No to Marlin Bay!! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, My name is Chris Goehausen. I am a homeowner in the Ocean Park neighborhood of Virginia Beach and I am writing to you to express my opposition to the proposed Marlin Bay apartment development. When we chose to move our family to this neighborhood,we selected Ocean Park for its tranquil nature, open space and it's low-density residential character of single family homes, duplexes and townhomes. The Marlin Bay apartment development as proposed is both fundamentally inconsistent with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan and Shore Drive Corridor Plan. More importantly, it would decimate the character and tranquility of our neighborhood. The development would more than double the residential units per acre of anything developed in the area, driving an immense increase in natural resource use, as well as transient foot and vehicular traffic, leading to over congestion and overflow into our neighborhood. The development and construction process itself would negatively impact the peace and tranquillity we value in our neighborhood, our ability to enjoy our property and negatively impact our property values by flooding the neighborhood with a high inventory of zero investment residences. I strongly urge you to officially oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment development. Sincerely, Rebecca Goehausen 2169 Woodlawn Ave. Virginia Beach,VA 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Christopher Goehausen <cgoehausen@me.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 7, 2021 11:02 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: re: Proposed Marlin Bay apartment development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, My name is Chris Goehausen. I am a homeowner in the Ocean Park neighborhood of Virginia Beach and I am writing to you to express my opposition to the proposed Marlin Bay apartment development. When we chose to move our family to this neighborhood, we selected Ocean Park for its tranquil nature, open space and it's low-density residential character of single family homes, duplexes and townhomes. The Marlin Bay apartment development as proposed is both fundamentally inconsistent with the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan and Shore Drive Corridor Plan. More importantly, it would decimate the character and tranquility of our neighborhood. The development would more than double the residential units per acre of anything developed in the area, driving an immense increase in natural resource use, as well as transient foot and vehicular traffic, leading to over congestion and overflow into our neighborhood. The development and construction process itself would negatively impact the peace and tranquillity we value in our neighborhood, our ability to enjoy our property and negatively impact our property values by flooding the neighborhood with a high inventory of zero investment residences. I strongly urge you to officially oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment development. Sincerely, Chris Goehausen 2169 Woodlawn Ave. Virginia Beach, VA 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Page Kistler, Esq. <page@kpagekistler.com> Sent: Monday,July 5, 2021 1:41 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: NO Marlin Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I am writing as a resident of Ocean Park to tell you that I am opposed to rezoning in Ocean Park and opposed to the Marlin Bay apartment complex. This rental complex does not belong in this well-established neighborhood of single family homes and duplexes. Further, this neighborhood is already densely packed and this complex is wrong here. Do not destroy the nature of our neighborhood by rezoning this property and allowing an apartment complex. Page Kistler 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Jeff Kimball <jeff.kimballl @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 1:03 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: Marchelle L. Coleman; Carolyn K. Smith Subject: Marlin Bay Recommendation Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I am flummoxed to learn that you have recommended the approval of the rezoning request for the Marlin Bay project despite the following incontrovertible issues: -Only 3 letters of support and over 200 letters of opposition to the proposal (including my email to you on May 19, 2021) - Unanimous opposition from the Ocean Park Civic League -Twice,the Bayfront Advisory Commission has failed to support the proposal - Density that is not in line with the character of the neighborhood As a homeowner in Ocean Park since 1995, I have always been suspicious of the city government's close relationship with developers that has resulted in negative quality of life changes to the residents of Virginia Beach. By ignoring the issues of the opposition to this rezoning,you are only reinforcing my suspicions. You work for the citizens of Virginia Beach, not the developers. Zoning laws are in place for a reason, and the spirit of those zoning restrictions should be honored. I do not oppose all development of this parcel, only the extreme scale of this one. I am happy to discuss this further. Sincerely, Jeff Kimball 2173 Woodlawn Avenue 757-343-5783 I. Hoa N. Dao From: Planning Administration Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 8:23 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: FW: Concerned Citizen - Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Hoa, See email below regarding opposition to the Marlin Bay project. This email was received in the Planning Administration inbox on Tuesday, June 22, 2021. Marchelle 1. Coleman, City Planner Ill City of Virginia Beach Planning & Community Development Planning Administration Division 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 (757) 385-8557 (Direct) (757) 385-4621 (Office) mcoleman@vbgov.com 11/42E3PlanninVC From: Ken Yagelski<ken@yagelski.com> Sent:Tuesday,June 22, 2021 2:27 PM To: Planning Administration <PlanAdmn@vbgov.com> Subject: Concerned Citizen- Marlin Bay Apartments F___ __________ ___ _____ _ CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, City of Virginia Beach Planning Commission. I am a resident of the beautiful Ocean Park neighborhood (East Stratford Road). This short message is simply to let you know that I oppose the pending request to increase density and rezone the area at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4 for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments. I am not opposed to development for Virginia Beach and the Shore Drive area, but I want to make certain that it improves the community and quality of life for everyone that is affected. That is not the case with this proposal. 1 Thank you, Ken Yagelski Ken Yagelski ken@vagelski.com 703.656.6031 @yagelski on most networks 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Abigail Tichler <tichlerabigailk@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 3:05 PM To: Hoa N. Dao; wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com;johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Ocean Park Marlin Bay Apartment Buildings Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I wanted to write this evening to ensure my voice was heard in regards to the proposed complex at Marlin Bay. I'm a new resident who lives on Mystic Cove Drive, having just moved here from an apartment complex in central Illinois that is similar to the proposed buildings. I strongly oppose this project, and hope to see either a significantly reduced strategy or alternative strategy entirely used for this space. I believe the foot traffic, car traffic, noise pollution, aesthetics, and everything in between on a project/complex like this will be horrible for our neighborhood, both during construction and forever after. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day! 1 Hoa N. Dao From: JAMES PASCHAL <ovfpl @aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:51 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We live in Ocean Park and would like to let the council know that we are AGAINST the Marlin Bay Project. James R. & Pamela Paschal 3872 Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach 23455 757-287-6842 757-289-5207 Sent from my iPad Hoa N. Dao From: Chris Kane <ckane@checkeredflag.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 1:19 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon Mr Dao, I am writing you concerning the Marlin Bay apartment proposed zoning change. As a resident of Ocean Park I am strongly opposed to the changing of zoning of this property. The city is already having a problem keeping up with the beach in this area and we are bursting at the seams with residential development. As you may be aware we are the largest tax based neighborhood in the city based on the volume and density of expensive homes. We don't have our own schools like Kings Grant or our own fired dept like other big neighborhoods. We have very limited on street parking for beach access for the current residents and other city residents who wish to visit the bay beaches. We have no beach this year and are years behind in sand replenishment and the city already has failed our neighborhood infrastructure in many ways. We don't need more residential tall buildings. We need commercial property for restaurants and shops to cater to the overwhelming demand from all of our residents. It is my opinion the zoning should remain commercial and be sold as such. Adding more multi family homes to our area will only put a bigger burden on the failed infrastructure of this area already. Please drive down this section of Shore Drive and see for yourself how little commercial space is left with homes built right up to the road. Thanks for your time and consideration. Chris Kane 757-439-7654 or ckane(c�checkeredflag.com Hoa N. Dao From: DellRita Gluckle <dellrita@outlook.com> Sent: Saturday,June 12, 2021 10:55 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have previously written to you strongly opposing this apartment development. Its crazy. This has always been such a peaceful and quiet neighborhood,full of love and friends and family. Today I witnessed graffiti on the fences, opposing this selfish and ridiculous proposal. I would, under any other circumstance be completely upset to see this graffiti in our beloved neighborhood, yet i found myself cheering and saying YES! TELL THEM! SPEAK YOUR MIND!THIS IS WHERE WE DECIDED TO BUY PROPERTY AND SETTLE DOWN! I do not love or promote graffiti, or the idea of it, but i must say, i was so excited to see the big "WE DONT WANT APTS HERE" spray painted on the fence. Our community, my friends, neighbors, and family that live in the beloved neighborhood, obviously oppose the MARLIN BAY APARTMENT COMPLEX proposal. How would you feel if we all voted to build an apartment complex next to your house and some higher power didnt care what you thought????Think beyond..become real with the idea..would you be all in favor of me/us building an apartment complex in your front, side or backyard??? This proposed idea goes against everything our neighborhood believes in and the reasons we decided to buy property in Ocean Park. I speak on behalf of myself and all of my of fellow Ocean Park homecowners..WE OPPOSE THE MARLIN BAY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT! Get Outlook for Android 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Linda Thorp <ljthorp66@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 7:43 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development---- OPPOSE THIS Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. On June 9th you will be voting on the Marlin Bay Apartment Development please OPPOSE This complex will overcrowd the area. This project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Thanks, Linda Thorp ******************************* Linda Thorp I Tel 757-464-1069 1 Cell 757-574-71061 Ijthorp66C©gmail.com i Hoa N. Dao From: lynn knight <lynnknight7@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 6, 2021 11:51 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: I oppose Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My family has lived in Ocean Park for 63 years. We don't want this area ruined by this huge apartment complex. It would ruin the nature and feel of this whole area. It would also make it very dangerous with the increased traffic which is already dangerous. Thank you, Lynn Knight Jefferson Blvd Ocean Park Sent from my iPad Hoa N. Dao From: Aanonsen, Kirk Roy CIV USN COMSC LANT NORFOLK(USA) <kirk.aanonsen@navy.mil> Sent: Saturday,June 5, 2021 8:58 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Project As a concerned resident of the Ocean Park Community, I respectfully request that you DO NOT support the Marlin Bay Apartment Development. Shore Drive is already over crowded and this project would make things even worse. R/ Kirk Aanonsen 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Ellen Mahon <ermahon001@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 8:06 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Proposed Marlin Bay Apt Complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged r______._. CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I am a HOMEOWNER in the OCEAN PARK section of Virginia Beach. Ocean Park is currently a STABLE AND ATTRACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY along the Shore Drive Corridor. The construction of a LARGE,HIGH POPULATION DENSITY APARTMENT COMPLEX at Shore and Marlin Bay Drives WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY in many ways,and make the Shore Drive Corridor less attractive. Such an apartment complex would NEGATIVELY IMPACT TRAFFIC,PARKING,STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,and accessibility to neighborhood destinations. Such an apartment complex would NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE PLEASURE HOUSE POINT NATURAL AREA,and the ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND THE BEACHES. My understanding is that such an development is NOT in accordance with either the city's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor plan. PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THE REZONING OF THIS AREA TO ALLOW A LARGE HIGH POPULATION DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. Thank you. E R Mahon MD 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Brianna D.Virtue <Brie.Virtue@vbschools.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 10:02 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Mr. Dao, I am a resident and active member in the Ocean Park Neighborhood. My husband and I have been attending the various community meetings regarding the Marlin Bay Apartment Development. We purchased our home knowing the type of character and community this area is renown for having over the past fifty years. We desired for our children to be raised and exposed to a small, historic community with a strong sense of neighborhood identity.That is hard to find in Virginia Beach and we feel truly blessed! The Marlin Bay Development would destroy the character of Ocean Park. The high-density alone would double the population of any recent Ocean Park development.The lot& zoning was NOT intended for this large of a development. Shore drive traffic currently congested &adding hundreds of more people/cars is simply TOO much for this area.This project is NOT in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. Our community has endured so much hardship over the past year with a National Pandemic. During this time, Pleasure House Point Natural Area and our neighborhood has served as a sanctuary for citizens to find safe outlets for both mental and physical health. Building this large, high-density apartment complex directly adjacent to 118 quiet acres of water,tidal marsh, and maritime forest would completely disregard the Comprehensive Plan for the Ocean Park area. We STRONLY oppose this potential rezoning&development for this location. Sincerely, Brie Virtue 828-506-1817 virtuebrie@gmail.com bdvirtue@vbschools.com Hoa N. Dao From: st1w01@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 8:46 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Mr. Dao, I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed 197 units Marlin Bay apartment development. I live in this area which is primarily town homes and single family homes. Not only will this proposed development add to the increasing congestion and traffic, a building that large does not fit into the surrounding neighborhood and will continue to burden our already stressed environment. I am not opposed to development on the this plot, it would be fitting to have similar sized residences (town homes and/or single family homes) or one/two story businesses which are also in the vicinity. Please take into consideration my opinion and those of my neighbors and preserve our community. Respectfully, Stephanie Lowe 2302 Rookery Way 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Janna Gentner <58janna85@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 8:15 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good day, I am an Ocean Park homeowner and I oppose the rezoning and potential Marlin Bay Development. My husband and I have just purchased our forever home in Ocean Park in order to allow our family to grow. We plan to be here for the rest of our lives and raise our children here. We do not believe this development is in the best interest of this close-knit community and beautiful Pleasure House Point that we love. Please do not allow this to go forward. Very Respectfully, Janna Gentner Jefferson Blvd Hoa N. Dao From: tavevb@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 7:57 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear, Mr. Dao I strongly oppose the request to increase density and rezoning to accommodate the Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. My concerns are as follows: • Preservation of the character of the Ocean Park and surrounding areas. I have been a resident of Virginia Beach for fifty-three years and for as long as I can remember,the Ocean Park and surrounding areas have been a low- key community. This is changing everyday with the addition of condos and apartments to the Shore drive corridor. If we add another apartment complex with a large density of residents to one of the last remaining parcels of land in the area, we will further diminish the longtime character of this area and what it has made it attractive to the current and future residents and visitors. Although development is inevitable it should be in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan to keep Shore Drive a low-density area and blend with the natural feel of the area. • Impacts this will have on Pleasure House Point. The Marlin Bay Apartments design does not meet the Pleasure House Point Comprehensive plan which specifically states "ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point." Based on the current design and size of the Marlin Bay Apartment complex it does not meet this comprehensive plan. A huge structure with so many people having direct access to Pleasure house point can only add to the already at times over crowded preserve. This will have a negative effect on the surrounding environment and wildlife that so much effort has been made into preserving. This is such a scared preserve and one of the few spaces left in Virginia Beach untouched by heavy development. Do we really want to risk tainting this asset to Virginia Beach? • Safety on the roads. I remember a sign that was posted on Shore Drive by the city cautioning people that it was a dangerous road by indicting how many people have died on it. The sign has been removed, but it continues to happen. Shore Drive is already a very busy and sometimes dangerous road and adding this magnitude of residents by way of a high-density apartment complex will only make it worse. With more traffic and an increase of recreational activity such as walking, biking, etc.,the possibility of future accidents will only increase. 1 Changing zoning and density to accommodate the Marlin Bay Apartments,should not be approved. I am not against development, but it should be with the historical character of the this area and take into consideration the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on Shore Drive as well as the impact to the Pleasure House Point Preserve. Thank you for your time, Lynn Tavenner 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Ronald Marciszyn <ronmarciszyn@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 10:17 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Evening, My wife and I own a home in Ocean Park just across Shore Drive from the proposed Marlin Bay development. I am writing to oppose the request to increase density and rezone for the Marlin Bay Apartments. Please note that I am not opposed to the development of the land in question, but the proposed project would have detrimental effects on the Ocean Park community and the quality of life. As it stands already, parking is at a premium in Ocean Park. In my portion of the neighborhood in particular, population density is already too high as evidenced by the time we spend each week circling the neighborhood in order to find parking along the roads. This is only exacerbated on the weekends with beach traffic leading to increased frustration for those of us trying to get home. Although the proposed project intends to mitigate this with a parking garage, I have no doubt it will add vehicles to both sides of Shore Drive. Furthermore, call it what you will, but a parking garage simply does not fit in Ocean Park; it is an eyesore and does not fit in line with our way of life here. This is a quaint and tight knit community with a fantastic charm to match; nothing about this project supports that. Ocean Park cannot handle traffic increases that would aggregate. One slowdown or delay on Shore Drive turns a 10 minute commute into an hour plus ordeal as there simply is no alternative route to traverse. The sheer number of apartments is concerning. With the delays of the dredging project for Ocean Park beaches, us current residents already find beach space at a premium. Though deceiving at low tide, the gradient of the current shoreline is so shallow the beach will fit only a small group against the dunes with barely enough room to traverse past at high tide. Adding 200+ families to this in addition to those who come from other local communities will crowd the beaches further, creating more issues and more frustration. This is a major contributor to what separates our community from that of across the Lesner. Pleasure House Point will no doubt be impacted. Despite mitigation to be proposed to protect the area, I see no way an increase in population in that area does not create issues for a piece of land that the city has worked so hard to make special. I fear not only for the frustrations the proposed project will bring, but the impact to a neighborhood I have come to love and made my biggest investment in. This project as proposed would not only affect property values in a negative way, but would also take away from the charm that is so important to us Ocean Park residents. I have talked with my friends and neighbors from throughout Ocean Park and can honestly say I have not come across one resident who supports the project. Small shops and businesses that align with the community goals and appeal are more than welcome. Please consider these factors, understanding that this is not just a plea to "leave our neighborhood alone;" my wife and I are both under 30 and have specifically invested ourselves into this neighborhood with plans to start our family here. We just wish to advocate for the meaningful growth of it. Very Respectfully, Ron Marciszyn 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Anne Shewan <ams8690@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 9:15 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Stop Marlin Bay Apartment development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I am a homeowner in Aeries on the Bay, a neighborhood off Shore Drive across the street from the proposed Marlin Bay Development. I am against this high density apartment complex. It will impact traffic which is already terrible, especially in the summer. I am concerned about its proximity to Pleasure House Point Natural Area. It does not reflect the open space that we now have at Pleasure House Point. Parking issues, worsening storm water runoff and loss of natural resources are all likely it it is approved. I am asking that you not approve the zoning change that has been requested. The project is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for Virginia Beach or the Shore Dr. Corridor Plan. Automobile traffic and people walking, riding bikes and jogging have increased significantly in the last 15 years. We need to prevent the development of an apartment complex that has a higher planned density than other projects in the area. I am firmly against this project and ask that you take the advice of the Bayfront Advisory Commission which did not approve the project either. Thank you for your attention regarding this matter. Sincerely, Anne Shewan M.D. Hoa N. Dao From: moscovitz2@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 7:33 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: **SHORE DRIVE/ MARLIN BAY DEVELOPMENT** Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. • Dear Mr. Dao: We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed 197 unit apartment complex with massive 4 1/2 story parking garage. This high density project would destroy the character of our neighborhood. This large project would certainly have a negative impact on the quality of life in Ocean Park. This is more than double the density of any other recent Ocean Park development and would create a terrible and detrimental precedent in favor of future such development. This project is not in compliance with with city's Comprehensive Plan nor the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. Additionally, the Bayfront Advisory Commission appointed by City Council did not approve this development. For the above-mentioned reasons, we vehemently oppose this development and urge you to do the same. Respectfully, Scott and Ruth Ann Moscovitz 33 year Ocean Park Residents 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Dawn Lee <dawn@dawnleerealestate.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 5:05 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Stop the MARLIN bay apartment development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION•This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Mr. Dao, I am greatly opposed to this project. A large, multi-story complex would negatively impact the density and quality of life in Ocean Park. This project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Dr. Corridor Plan. As a 30 year resident of this community I have seen the traffic increase immensely and I believe this will add to the already "bottle neck traffic" at Marlin Bay and Shore Dr. Please take this into consideration and oppose this development. Thank you, Dawn Read what past clients are saying about me: http://www.zillow.com/profile/Dawn-Lee/Reviews/ Circle of Excellence award winner in Hampton Roads Realtor Association! Dawn Lee, REALTOR® Beach South Realty 5265 Providence Road,Suite 202 Virginia beach,VA 23464 Office: 757-828-5858 Cell: 757-403-4287 Website: www.dawnleerealestate.com Licensed Real Estate Agent in Virginia 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Patricia Benze <pab325@cox.net> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 4:39 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Proposed Marlin Bay Apartments Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident of Ocean Park who is extremely troubled about possible changes affecting the future of our neighborhood, I am writing to express my concerns. During the past few years, it seems that the City of Virginia Beach has become more concerned with tax revenue than the of welfare of its citizens—case in point is the 197-unit apartment complex and 4%2 story parking garage proposed for the corner property at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. This development would potentially destroy the character of Ocean Park and overcrowd our neighborhood, streets, and beaches, as well as disrupting the quiet nature of Pleasure House Point Natural Area. Hopefully you and your colleagues will carefully consider the detrimental effects this development would have on our small, much loved community and oppose the rezoning and development realizing that it does not belong in this area. Sincerely, Patricia A. Benze 3743 Surry Road—Ocean Park Hoa N. Dao From: Julia Bell <jbell48@cox.net> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 4:32 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Dear Mr. Dao, Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I have been a resident of ocean park since 1994. I have seen our neighborhood go from mostly rentals to now family owned properties. We are a middle class neighborhood with a million dollar environment. With this I mean we now have Pleasure House Point Park. I along with many other people fought hard to save that property. I was the one who met with all the civic leagues, Open Space Committee, Parks and Recreation, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Lynnhaven Now etc to pitch that land as a park. It has been such a blessing to the area. Every day people walk the park and enjoy the beautiful birds sitting in the trees and those standing in shallow water searching for bait fish and crabs. We have rabbits, raccoons, squirrels, foxes etc that inhabit that park. Building a four story apartment building in a neighborhood that doesn't have apartment buildings would destroy the charm of Ocean park. We are very much a family oriented area. Four story apartment building with 197 units would not only create an eyesore to our area ( I don't care how architecturally appealing it is) it would not fit into our neighborhood. The townhomes on Ocean Tides will have people looking down into their backyards. These are young families who bought in this area because of the quiet and friendly environment. With 197 units comes double the cars. That's another 394 or more cars added to an already overly crowed overly used road. Without the new stop light installed there are days you can't even get on shore drive might less cross it by foot without going to the light. If the developer wants to build on that property then let the homes either be townhouses or single family homes like the ones that have popped up along shore drive. Home owners are more apt to be mindful of their neighbors and it would be less cars in an already over saturated roadway. With four stories, 197 units and a pool the noise level will without a doubt would impact our whole neighborhood. Have you ask the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Lynnhaven River Now or Parks and Recreation if this will effect the park or the wildlife? Have you done a study of the impact of this on Shore Drive? What about the added stress on our first responders? This project is not in compliance with the city's comprehensive plan or the Shore Drive corridor plan. With the new larger Windsong apartments being built that will add even more cars and heavier traffic on Shore Drive. I implore you to reconsider the apartment zoning and deny their request. This is a very large project that we do not want in our backyard just as I am sure you wouldn't want in yours. Sincerely, Julia Rae Bell 2139 whispering sands la Vb 23455 Hoa N. Dao From: Denise Query <denise23455@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 4:17 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Developement Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao, I thank you for your time. I have been an Ocean Park resident for 22+years. The traffic has increased beyond its capacity, especially during the summer months.The zoning granted to this project is over 2 times what has been allowed in previous years, and for very legitimate reasons,.The Bayfront Advisory Commission did not approve the project. and as a longtime home owner, neither do I. I appreciate you listening to my concerns for our low density neighborhood goals. Denise Query 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Beverly Seifried <bev2sail@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 17,2021 4:09 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Concern with Marlin Bay apartment project impact to Ocean Park water pressure Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Qi$ es0 [ ew livi%$,iwniairx exiv viwwyvi w4asri$js gier$Cei vie xs$i_wmalex $ Li$ tegxtj$ Lit e r 'e}%teq ir$iizirstq irC$ Wsq itsger'irklfsvw is sx$Lezi$ripef ex viwwyvi$gywir ( rh%vi$ { swiih i$( swi2 Er}$trjs%v wx3w)exv$}sy$ger$iijivirgi4 sy i i%ttvigr xLhO xlerol}sy Fizi }$nlitjzrih 7<55t }wxg$szl$x ZF i Hoa N. Dao From: Carly Swift <dr.cswift@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 1:24 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Day Mr. Dao, I am a resident of Ocean Park and business owner along Shore Drive. I strongly oppose the rezoning of the lots for the Marlin Bay site.The rezoning to B-4 mixed use is only possible by including the existing retail boat sales business but that retail is not included into the project. Furthermore the project builds on less acreage than would be used to obtain the requested density. Other projects on a B-4 zoning have put 14.29 units per acre not 31.77. This project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan which has a goal of low density. This community is made up of townhomes and single family homes. A high density apartment complex would set a precedent for any future projects and destroy the character of Ocean Park. Please make note of my opposition when presenting the packet to the City Council. I am in support of a development which is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Shore Dr. Corridor Plan. Dr. Carly Swift Wave Of Life Chiropractic Center 4640 Shore Dr. Ste 108 Virginia Beach, VA 23455 757-321-7776 Wave of Life website LIKE US on FACEBOOK! "Dedicated to transforming Virginia Beach into a community of health& vitality." The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.Any review,retransmission,dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the original sender's prior written consent. This e-mail is for general informational purposes only and of itself creates no obligations on the part of the sender or sender's affiliates. 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Ritch LaTulipe <ritch.latulipe@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 1:24 PM To: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; wgramhamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondVBCP@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; rkleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com; Hoa N. Dao Subject: Oppose Marlin Bay Cheap Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commissioner I am a twenty two year resident of the Ocean Park neighbor in VA Beach. I should not have to, but am writing to the Planning Commissioners to insist that you please follow the current rules concerning the Marlin Bay Apartment Development. I have personally asked the city for three variances over my 22 years and been rejected all three times. The city has proven to me that the rules very much apply to me. I'm not sure, however I suspect,the reasons the rules do not apply to large building projects. (Prove me wrong). I am not asking for special consideration! Simply make this project follow the rules as they are. This high density, large, multi-story complex will, of course, negatively impact our neighborhood. In my twenty two years here, I have seen the traffic more than double. Changing the current PDH-1 and B-2 to B-4 is inappropriate. Why in the world would we allow higher density? All that I ask is to make this decision as if you lived here and would have to deal with the impact of not following rules. Thank you Ritch LaTulipe 3727 W. Stratford Rd Software Engineer-QED Systems inc Ritch@engineer.com 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Tom Wells <tom.mark.wells@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 12:30 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD...STOP THE MARLIN BAY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAt►TION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. May 17, 2021 Dear Mr. Dao: My wife and I moved to Aeries On The Bay off Shore Drive near where the proposed MARLIN BAY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT might be built. We moved here because of the serene, beachy atmosphere we found here 3 years ago and have enjoyed immensely the Chick's Beach area with our neighbors,friends and family. We were shocked to hear of the proposed development that in our judgment, would greatly intrude and destroy the ambiance that defines living near the Lesner Bridge. PLEASE STOP this development that would over-burden our area and make it a congested mess!! As it is, Shore Drive has enough challenges servicing all who live here now and with modest growth, it is destined to only get worse. DO NOT BRING THE DC CONGESTION to our fair community. Please abide by and be in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan//the Shore Drive Corridor Plan! Our Bayfront Advisory Committee did NOT approve this project and neither do we!! Thank you for your gracious acknowledgment of this request, Thomas M. & Gail V. Wells 3926 Aeries Way Virginia Beach, VA 23455-1552 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Jessica Rossi <JRossi@shaheenlaw.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 11:52 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: FW: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom it May Concern, I oppose this Marlin Bay Apartment Development (197-unit apartment complex) because this will cause hundreds of more people and cars to flock to Ocean Park and our area is not set up for the volume of people this will bring. Our beach is small and well preserved as well as the Pleasure House Point Natural Area. We can't even get the beach replenishment as is. We have a small community feel and sense of belonging in Ocean Park and we want to preserve it. This area is not in a strategic growth area where this development actually belongs.This apartment complex belongs somewhere else. Please do not allow this to happen and make our small community disappear. Shore Drive is far from being the right place for this. THIS IS AN AWFUL IDEA. Jessica Rossi, Real Estate Paralegal I Shaheen Law Firm, P.C. Southside Office 15041 Corporate Woods Drive,Suite 150 I Virginia Beach,VA 23462 USA Peninsula Office 112350 Jefferson Avenue,Suite 100 I Newport News,VA 23602 USA Direct: 757-961-5578 I Fax: 888-641-2611 I www.shaheenlaw.com Note: Please overnight all seller packages to the office in which the closing will take place. Ask me about how Shaheen Law Firm now accepts Earnest Money Deposits(EMD)via Electronic Check. The Shaheen Law Firm, P.C. implementation of ALTA Best Practices has been certified by the CPA firm Keiter DISCLAIMER The information contained in this message is confidential.Any unintended use,printing,copying,disclosure or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.No confidentiality or privilege is waived by any unintentional transmission.This message and any attachments are believed to 1 be free of any virus or defect.It is the responsibility of the recipient however,to ensure that this message is virus free.We do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message or for any loss or damage.Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.Messages sent to and from us may be monitored.If you believe that you have received this message in error,please contact us. 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Katie Tomlinson <katierunxcl @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 11:36 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: STOP the Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon Mr. Dao, I am writing in opposition to the Marlin Bay Apartment Development. As a resident of Ocean Park and Marlin Bay Ct. I am most concerned about the negative environmental impact a project of this size could entail. I appreciate the beauty and utility of the Pleasure House Point Natural Area, 118 exquisite acres of water,tidal marsh,sandy shores and maritime forest. My husband and I, in addition to fellow Ocean Park residents,Virginia Beach residents and tourists flock to this paradise daily to observe nature and ensure that litter and debris is removed from the premises. The health of this Natural Area and habitat of its wildlife would be stressed with the proposed construction of a 197-unit apartment complex. In addition,the construction does not represent development that is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point. The Pleasure House Point Natural Area is a gem of both Ocean Park and Virginia Beach and one that will be undoubtedly put at risk with the construction of the proposed Apartment Complex. Strongly encouraging you to vote NO to the Marlin Bay Apartment Development, Katie Tomlinson i. Hoa N. Dao From: tflindemannpost@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 17,2021 11:04 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com;dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development(Opposition) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao: I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments development and would ask you to recommend that this development or any form of development that would require an alteration of the current zoning of the properties not proceed. I share the view expressed by fellow Ocean Park residents,the Ocean Park Civic League,and the Bay Front Advisory Council that the proposed development is inconsistent with the City of Virginia Beach's Comprehensive Plan for the Shore Drive Corridor. Specifically,the proposed apartment complex is not a compatible infill development,as it will not preserve and protect the character of the established Ocean Park neighborhood on account of its height,massing,and scale. The Marlin Bay properties should not be rezoned for this development and the planning commission should not recommend that the project proceed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Timothy F. Lindemann 3714B Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach,VA 23455 tflindemannpost@aol.com 1 Hoa N. Dao From: jojovb <jojovb@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 10:16 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Oppose the Marlin Bay Apartment Complex on Shore Dr Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sir, As a longtime resident of Virginia Beach who grew up here, I'm dismayed about yet another proposal for high density housing on Shore Drive. Shore Drive and Great Neck Road have become two lanes of traffic jams or speedways, depending on the time of day. Neither can accommodate yet another housing complex. This 187 unit apartment complex and parking garage are not within the vision of Shore Drive nor is it wanted by residents of Ocean Park and surrounding areas. Planning policies specifically direct lowest possible density as well as preserving the integrity of the surrounding established neighborhoods. Virginia Beach is sadly losing its appeal as construction marches on and the natural areas with trees and views of sandy beaches rapidly decline. When is it ever enough? Sincerely, Joanne Filion 2789 Broad Bay Rd VB 23451 Hoa N. Dao From: Tom Bryan <madgreek56@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 7:39 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Merlin Bay Apartments is a Bad Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged r-____ CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Planner, Mr. Dao: Imagine if in your established historic neighborhood, a money hungry developer wanted to build an extreme high density apartment complex against all city planning rules and neighborhood desires. What would you do? Ocean Park is already congested. Shore Drive can not take any more cars. The proposed Marlin Bay Apartment development is so dense just this one project will increase our neighborhood traffic by 13%. Where is the common sense here and the accountability. We need no more congestion in our neighborhood and no High Density Apartments. I oppose the high Density Marlin Bay Apartments. I trust that you will use common sense and your long term planning experience with Virginia Beach to stop the craziness in this already over build community. Please do not support and do not recommend the project. Thank you in advance. Tasos Tsolakis 3805 Jefferson Blvd 757 651 4834 27 years living and paying taxes in Ocean Park 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Christi Tsolakis <christlbt@att.net> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 7:06 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Do not support Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao: I lived on and off in Ocean Park for the last 59 years. What I love of our neighborhood is that it is a working class neighborhood mixed with young families and the old residents of Ocean Park. Our streets have become very congested, Shore Drive became a death bed and our neighborhood became abused by the weekenders. The proposed Marlin Bay Apartments will further destroy and congest our neighborhood. Our neighborhood can not handle any more residents. The proposed Marlin Bay Apartment project is 2 to 3 times as dense than any other approved project. Our neighborhood population will increase significantly and can not be handled by our neighborhood streets. We do need some shopping area for our neighborhood but we need no more residents and no more congestion. Please stop this craziness and the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment Development. Do not support it. As a planner for Virginia Beach you have the responsibility to maintain and improve the quality of life of our neighborhood while you develop plans for the City. Please pay attention to our neighborhood. We are local tax paying residents and need the same attention as the city gives to the rich neighborhoods of Virginia Beach. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Christl Bryan Tsolakis 3805 Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach, VA 23455 757-323-4304 Hoa N. Dao From: Christi Tsolakis <christlbt@att.net> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 6:41 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Do not support Merlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao: I live in the Ocean Park neighborhood for the past 59 years. I am 92 years old and I have lived thru all the changes of Virginia Beach and Ocean Park. Our area became very congested, our sleepy neighborhood became a party town for the weekenders and our lifestyle deteriorated significantly. The proposed Marlin Bay (Mega)Apartments will further destroy our neighborhood. The proposed density is extremely high at least twice of any approved project. This just one project will increase our population by 12% to 14%. Our streets, shore drive and our neighborhood beach cannot handle any more residents not even 5%. If we need something is more shopping for our neighborhood. We need no more traffic and no more congestion. I do not support this project and you should not recommend it in support of our historic neighborhood. A a planner of Virginia Beach you have the responsibility to maintain the quality of life of our neighborhoods. Please do something to stop the Mega Marlin Bay Apartments. I recognize that our neighborhood will not return to 1962 but it does not need to become more congested and it will be nice to remain a family neighborhood. Thank you for caring and planning for our City. Elizabeth (Betty) Bryan 2217 Powhatan Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23455 757-464-0659 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Kathleen Heilig <Kathleen.Heilig@vbschools.com> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 12:58 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apt Concerns Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Mr. Dao, I have lived in Virginia Beach for all of my 52 years, and have owned my current home in Ocean Park for over 18 years. I am very much opposed to the construction of the Marlin Bay Apartments. The size and density of this project are extremely concerning. This proposed development seems to contradict numerous goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. One of the most glaring being to "Achieve the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses" (CP,Suburban Areas 1-70). If approved at 31.77 units per acre, this project would create an unsettling precedent for growth in our neighborhood. In recent years,three townhouse projects within a block or two of the proposed Marlin Bay construction have been built. Additionally, a stoplight was recently added in this same vicinity at E Stratford and Shore Drive, and this has added to the congestion and slowed down traffic considerably at certain times of the day. I don't want to imagine the negative impact an additional 372 vehicles would have on the traffic in this immediate area. A large, high density apartment complex would be devasting to Ocean Park residents and would change the character our beloved neighborhood. Please do not vote for this project. Thank you for your time, Kathleen Heilig i Hoa N. Dao From: Isabelle Ricks <isabellericks19@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 9:23 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, I am sending you this message to let you know I am a resident of Aeries on The Bay and I oppose the rezoning for the Marlin Bay Apartment and its potential development. Thank you for your time. Mrs Isabelle Ricks 757 478 4942 1 Hoa N. Dao From: richart kahler <rick23455@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 9:04 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marline Bay Apartment Complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. M r. Dao Please vote no on the Marlin Bay Apartment developed as currently proposed. I understand that it's a challenge to balance economic development and neighborhood preservation, but the proposed apartment complex is too large and dense, and will destroy the character of Ocean Park and my neighbor, Pelican dunes. • The proposed 197 units averages 31.77 units per acre, which is more than double the density recent Ocean Park projects. • The site is currently zoned PDH-1 and B-2. The proposed conditional use change to B-4, Mixed Zoning is inappropriate, as it is intended for combined retail and housing. • Other recent projects have re-zoned to B-4 at a much lower density. (14.29 units per acre and were B2 (retail)to B4. • The Bayfront Advisory Commission did not approve the project. Most importantly the project is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Drive Corridor Plan. The City's comprehensive Plan specify addresses development adjacent to the Pleasure House Point Natural Area requiring projects to be complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point. This high density development will adversely impact Pleasure House Point and violates the City's Comprehensive Plan.This project negatively impact the quality of life of my family, please vote no on the proposed conditional use permit change. Thank you— Rick Kahler 2168 Woodlawn Ave Virginia Beach,VA 23455 (757) 343-4945 1 Hoa N. Dao From: rjones3731@cox.net Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 7:42 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Rezoning for Marlin Bay should not be approved. The project is not in keeping with the comprehensive plan, is to dense for our residential area and sets a bad precedent for future developers. We don't want a 4 1/2 story parking garage up against the residential housing. Additionally the Bayfront Advisory Commission has not approved the project. 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Susan Lawson <se152976@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 10:00 PM To: Hoa N. Dao; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamvbpc@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; Rkleinvbpc@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE MARLIN BAY APARTMENT PROPOSAL IN OCEAN PARK Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao &City Planning Commissioners, I am a resident of Ocean Park, a member of the Ocean Park Civic League, and a longtime resident of the Shore Drive Corridor. I am writing to tell you that I am strongly opposed to the Marlin Bay Development complex proposed for Ocean Park. An apartment complex does not belong in this neighborhood - it would overwhelm our small, historic neighborhood with its height, expansive sprawl and high volume of people. Building a complex like Marlin Bay would overshadow and obscure everything that makes Ocean Park such a special neighborhood,where people forge close friendships and value the small-community feel with their neighbors. Apartments, by design and density, run completely counter to the Ocean Park community, and would have a terrible and negative impact on the community in a number of ways. For those reasons alone, I believe the Marlin Bay Apartment complex proposal zoning change request(s)should be denied. Furthermore, Ocean Park is not a Strategic Growth Area (SGA) and should not be subjected to massive developments that belong in areas previously designated as SGAs. Large developments make sense for SGAs and NOT in small,well- established neighborhoods like Ocean Park. I implore you to DENY the Marlin Bay Apartment complex proposal zoning request.This is my sentiment, and also the sentiment of so many of my fellow neighbors in this community, and our surrounding sister communities (Aeries on the Bay, Baylake Pines & Lynnhaven Shores). By and large, we are collectively in opposition to this zoning change request- and in opposition to the proposal to build the Marlin Bay Apartment complex in our neighborhood. We have spoken out against this as a community time and again - most recently at the Bayfront Advisory Commission, in which the BAC board members denied the developers support for their proposal to build in Ocean Park. We are confident you understand and agree with our significant concerns about this proposed zoning change request (and the proposed complex), and ask you to honor the City's Comprehensive Plan by voting against this zoning request by the Marlin Bay developers on June 9th. 1 Thank you! Very respectfully, Susan E. Lawson Ocean Park Civic League (757)286-2612 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Mikaela S <mikaelasakach@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 9:22 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: New Development in Marlin Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sir, I am writing because I live in the neighborhood where the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments would be. I walk those trails every single day and live less than 0.2 miles from the shore drive/marlin bay are. Putting a large apartment complex there would be devastating for this area. It is far too small of an area &that beautiful Nature Preserve will be overrun with hundreds of more people with an entire new complex in.That preserve is meant to preserve nature and with hundreds more people being added,that entire eco-system will change.This area is far too small to accommodate a large apartment building. That complex will also cause residents of the neighborhood property value to go down.This area is not made for large apartment complexes, rather that building should be made in oceanfront.There is not enough space in this neighborhood for an apartment complex. Thanks for listening, Mikaela Sakach 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Mike Skowronski <mjskowronski@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 6:28 PM To: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmonVBPC@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder- brick.com; Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sirs and Madams, I am a resident of Aeries on the Bay, and I strongly oppose the Marlin Bay Apartments complex. Overpopulating our surrounding neighborhood will completely change our neighborhood, for the worst. This is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Corridor Plan. The Bayfront Advisory Commission did not approve this project. Anyone with any authority who votes for this project votes for the detriment of our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Mike Skowronski Aeris on the Bay 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Peggy White <powvb67@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 6:25 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to voice my concern over this project. Shore Drive cannot handle any more apartments/condos. The road itself is busy and almost impossible to make a left turn toward the oceanfront. Our streets are small and we cannot handle any more cars that a project of this size is suggesting. The beaches are narrow and again will not hold the volume of people included in this project. The grocery stores also. The bayfront advisory committee did not recommend The design of this project. Please do not allow this to go forward Peggy white 2253 Powhatan Ave. 757620-1550 Sent from my iPad Hoa N. Dao From: Gail Wells <gailvwells©me.com> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 5:03 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am an Ocean Park resident & live in Aeries on the Bay. I am opposed to the Marlin Bay apartment development. It will destroy the character of Ocean Park and is not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Shore Dr., Corridor Plan among many other things. Please do not approve this project! Sent from my iPhone Hoa N. Dao From: Brandon Duvall <brandonduva1189@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 11:35 AM To: Hoa N. Dao; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamvbpc@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvpc@icloud.com; johncoston@gmail.com; RKleinvbpc@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Oppose Marlin Bay Apartment Division Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. All considering, I verboten such consideration the rezoning efforts for the Marlin Bay Apartment development. I find the idea totally abhorrent and ignoble.This will make the Ocean Parks a hellscape and negatively impact nature life preserve and the community as the increase of a population will unequivocally bring crime and various forms of pollution (i.e. noise and light), and just an overall negative effect . I call for a moratorium of this activity. V/R Brandon Duvall Ocean Parks Resident 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Buster Banwarth <busterbanwarth@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 12:59 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Ocean Park Emergency Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good day and I hope you are well. The proposed change for apartments is Preposterous. It was zoned that way orignally so why are we changing it now to facilitate overcrowding, pollution, traffic, and lack of emergency response. I know you will make the right decision in all of this. There is no way possible this is right for the city or my neighbors. Sent from my iPhone 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Randy Betz <randybetz@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 9:40 AM To: Hoa N. Dao; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhconston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder- brick.com Subject: Against Marlin Bay Apartment Complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to ask for your support in opposing the proposed rezoning and development at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4 zone for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment project due to the negative impacts on Ocean Park. This type of large apartment complex with unreasonable density and adjoining multi-story parking deck do not fit the neighborhood of single family, duplexes, and townhomes within Ocean Park. A development of this size will degrade our neighborhood and community character and increase traffic congestion on an already dangerous Shore Drive. Further, this development even in its proposed redesign is not congruent with the natural beauty of Please House Point. Sincerely, Randall W. Betz 2344 Rookery Way Virginia Beach, VA 23455 randybetz@hotmail.com Hoa N. Dao From: Karen Blanchard <karenblanster@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 5:09 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: Gmail Subject: Proposed Marlin Bay Apartments to be heard at the Planning Commission June 9th. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I absolutely disagree with any more building of any kind on Shore Drive and for that matter, Virginia Beach. We are already inundated with more traffic and people than we can handle. Will we have one bit of green left when all is said and done and the builders pockets are bulging along with the City by reaping more taxes and fees? The condos that were built on Shore Drive alongside the Lesner Bridge are too close to the road and the number of people living there has greatly increased the traffic and the accidents; look at the monstrosities built on N. Great Neck Road at the Marina where a citizen used to be able to relax and have a good meal in a restaurant or a dance club. This is a prime example of poor planning. How many condos did they build there with one road in and one road out? No more! And they are trying to add to the apartments on Pleasure House Road at Windsong Apartments! And even in the parking lot at Pembroke Mall! It is appalling and is ruining our beautiful city. My son is leaving this week and is moving out of state as Virginia Beach is no longer recognizable as a residential home for individuals. Let's just start calling it N.Y.! Please someone stop the insanity. Karen Blanchard, a concerned citizen Sent from Mail for Windows 10 i. From: Thomas Ewer To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments-Please preserve our community Date: Wednesday,May 12,2021 12:20:35 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Dao: I am writing to ask for your support in opposing the proposed rezoning and development at Shore Drive and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to a conditional B4 zone. While I am not opposed to all future development on this site, I do have significant concerns regarding the type of rezoning being proposed for the Marlin Bay Apartment Complex. Mr. Dao, over the past few years, my fiance and I have fallen in love with this truly wonderful and unique community, the neighborhood culture, the preservation and care for nature, and our beach. We see a safe and rewarding future for our growing family here. I have spoken with members of the Ocean Park community so sure I am not the first to tell you that we unanimously agree that the last thing this neighborhood needs is this sort of development. Our beaches are rapidly eroding away while developments like these continue to bring more people to our shore. Traffic has already gotten worse over time and people continue to die while driving on and crossing Shore Dr. Parking in our neighborhood is tight as it is and even with a 400 car parking garage, this development is sure to add to the congestion on our streets, strangers, who have less invested in our community, in front of our homes, and in our trails. Ocean Park is one of very few and true gems in Virginia Beach that is loved by the locals yet at risk of being overtaken by greedy pockets who have no interest in what is best for us. Among many logistical and ecological reasons, this development will shadow an entire lifestyle, our lifestyle. This lot could certainly be used for many other types of development that would better the existing community as opposed to tearing away from it. Restaurants, a local garden, community pool, or retail options would most certainly be more appreciated than 300+ more people in a 4 story building serving as the cornerstone to our beautiful community. Please Mr. Dao, stand up for us and help preserve this special family in Virginia Beach. Genuinely and Respectfully, Thomas Ewer Hoa N. Dao From: JAMES PASCHAL <ovfpl @aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:47 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We are opposed to the Marlin Bay Project. James & Pam Paschal 3872 Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach 23455 757-289-5207 Sent from my iPad Hoa N. Dao From: Terry Driscoll <terryddriscoll@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:51 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Proposed 197 unit apt complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sir, I live on Page Ave,just off Shore Drive, on the eastern side of the Lesner bridge. I am opposed to the proposed apartment development at Marlin Bay and Shore Drive for numerous reasons. These high density developments do nothing to improve our quality of life. Despite increased development in the city, that increases the tax rolls, our property assessments and taxes go up every year. The only one who benefits is the developer. 197 more living units along the Shore Drive corridor will only add to the dangerous speeding traffic and congestion that already exists. Increased pedestrian traffic across Shore Drive to access the beach will also increase the hazard to both the pedestrians and drivers. People, in general, have become bold and disrespectful of our neighborhoods around the bay beaces. They defy no trespassing signs to access the beach across our property, leaving litter and dog waste in their trail.Adding more rental units will only magnify these issues for neighboring property owners. Large, high density housing is not in line with the character of the existing neighborhood. The impact of so many more people& pets potentially using the Pleasure House Point natural area could be detrimental to that resource. Please do not allow this project to move off the drawing board. Respectfully, Terese Driscoll 3240 Page Ave Virginia Beach Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Karole Burris <karolelburris@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 7:45 AM To: Hoa N. Dao;galcarazvbpc@icloud.com;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ntiaq g uanrk$s wojsv$}sy ytts $ttswnrk$cli: .‘stswih$ii-srnrk*trh$zizirstq it J1sviSiumi$arh$ Q etipn e}Sj\sq 63THL5$s%tsrhrausreE*'8$-sri2[ 1r i q $s>ttswih$s$ vi$iizirstq irxtr$cliw$ wmci( $zsaezi ELujigertsrgivrw$iiketzrirk$cli$c}ti$;j&i-srnrk inrk$`stswih4sv$clit e xr 'e}$tevq ir> Gsq tri 14 • This type of apartment complex does not fit into the historic neighborhood of single family, duplexes, and townhouse homes that is Ocean Park. • Large apartment complexes are clustered together near other dense-land spaces, and not in small long-established neighborhoods, making such a proposed plan incongruent with the limited footprint that exists within Ocean Park. • Once the property is rezoned, the developers could further develop the property. The parcels are not under one ownership. If the Boat Sale parcel segregates itself, it could be redeveloped as a separate parcel. • My opposition is also based on these probable negative effects: the loss of neighborhood and community character, a decrease in the market value of my home and increased traffic congestion, adding to an already dangerous Shore Drive corridor. z iv}$iwt igxjyyD}($ OeNsEi$'yv,rw$ Gliwxivjtipa%zia,sq i${ riv$ 1 Hoa N. Dao From: jack_sonntag@yahoo.com Sent: Monday,August 30,2021 8:02 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Ocean Park Zoning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sir or Madam, Please be aware that I am opposed to changes to zoning that are under consideration in the Ocean Park/Chic's Beach area. I am a very happy, full-time resident in Ocean Park and believe the current mix of commercial and hosting is correct. I ask you to vote to prohibit changes to the present zoning at the 9/8/21 meeting. Thank you. See you there! -Jack Sonntag 3749 Surry Rd. VB, VA 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Kris Cravedi <kriscravedi@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,August 30, 2021 4:31 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Concerned Ocean Park Resident Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dearest Planning Commission Members and City Council -As a concerned home owner across Shore Drive from the proposed Marlin Bay Development, I strongly oppose this large high density development. It is reasonable to keep the property under the existing zoning and city guidelines: townhouses, duplexes, and single family homes. My request is for you not to rezone this property for a large high density multi-family development that would fundamentally change the nature and character of our neighborhood. I ask of you to preserve our Ocean Park neighborhood and stand behind the residents decision to oppose the rezoning of the property. Thank you for your attention. Respectfully, Kris Cravedi 3808 Long Ship Court Sent from my iPhone 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Joanne Parker <lappinparker@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,August 30,2021 3:31 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Opposition to Marlin Bay development in Ocean Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, It is with great urgency that I write to you in opposition on the requested change in zoning for the proposed Marlin Bay Development. The population density the development will create is extraordinarily out of place in the Ocean Park community. The infrastructure at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay is in no way sufficient to handle this increased traffic load, not to mention the small neighborhood community streets that surround this massive development as proposed. Such density and inevitable subsequent pollution caused by a development of this size will certainly create a dramatically negative impact on the Maritime Forests and wetlands and wildlife of Pleasure House Point Natural Area located directly across the street from the area in question. Developing the land in a manner consistent with and with respect to it's surroundings is all I, as a 20+ year Ocean Park community member, am asking. Respect the precious area of Virginia Beach that we are trying to protect. Do not approve this rezoning or B4 Condition Use request. Very truly yours, Joanne Lappin Parker Woodlawn Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Planning Administration Sent: Monday,August 30, 2021 2:46 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: FW: Marlin Bay Apartments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Hoa, See below letter of opposition for Marlin Bay, received in the Planning Administration inbox on 8/30/2021. Have a great one, Marchelle L. Coleman, City Planner Ill City of Virginia Beach Planning & Community Development Planning Administration Division 2875 Sabre Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 (757) 385-8557 (Direct) (757) 385-4621 (Office) mcoleman@vbaov.com IBPlan mng rtp 4r •rIvp-r •4 From: Kathleen Carpenter<kgrace5@cox.net> Sent: Monday,August 30, 20212:21 PM To: Planning Administration<PlanAdmn@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission Members, I am a resident of Ocean Park and I would like to express my strong opposition to the Marlin Bay Apartment complex that is proposed for Shore Dr. in Ocean Park. I am opposed to the change in zoning that would allow a project of this size to be built in our small, unique neighborhood.This property is not zoned for almost 200 units on only 4.2 acres.The impact on our neighborhood would be a negative one. I chose to live in Ocean Park because of its unique qualities, its small town atmosphere and its unrushed neighborhood quality of life.This project will change this community in a profoundly negative way and I feel this is unfair to me as a resident(and property owner of more than 20 years). i This project has 31.77 units per acre. This is more than double anything built anywhere nearby. Recent projects in Ocean Park have been 14 units per acre.This is NOT lowest reasonable density called for in the Comprehensive Plan that is supposed to guide city decision making.This project is not consistent with the residential area around it.The Comprehensive Plan calls for new residential development be "consistent with the character of any residential uses in the surrounding area". The predominantly 4 story building will tower over the adjacent townhouses. The 4 1/2 story parking garage will be plainly visible over the 3 story portion of the building on Shore Dr.This project is out of step with the Ocean Park community which is comprised of duplexes,townhomes and single family homes. This apartment complex is not like anything around it and will change what I moved to Ocean Park to find. The Bayfront Advisory Commission was established by City Council in 1998.The mission given by City Council to the Bayfront Advisory Commission is:to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding public and private projects and issues associated with the Bayfront area, and projects or issues associated with the Bayfront area that the City Council may refer to the Commission. Twice the Bayfront Advisory Commission voted not to approve the design for this project,finding it incompatible with the Design Guidelines for Shore Dr. due to the scale of the project,the massing and close proximity to townhouses. Please do not support this zoning change for the Marlin Bay Project.Thank you for your attention and your consideration. Sincerely, Kathleen Carpenter 3822 Clipper Bay Drive 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Melanie Gazzolo <melaniegazzolo@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 10:59 AM To: Hoa N. Dao; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; dbradley36@cox.net; wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com;johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com; City Council Subject: Marlin Bay Apartment Complex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom it May Concern, As residents of Ocean Park, and owners of a home on Woodlawn Avenue,we are writing to express our strong opposition to the Marlin Bay Apartment complex that is proposed for Shore Drive in Ocean Park. We are opposed to the change in zoning that would allow a project of this size to be built in our small, unique neighborhood. This property is not zoned for almost 200 units on only 4.2 acres. We chose to live in Ocean Park because of its unique qualities, its small town atmosphere and its unrushed neighborhood quality of life. This project will change this community in a profoundly negative way and we feel this is unfair to us as residents and property owners. Not only will the development of this project diminish the quality of life for residents of Ocean Park visually, but the influx of such a large number of people will negatively impact traffic, overpopulate the already diminishing beaches, and cause damage to the neighboring Pleasure House Park.This project is out of step with the Ocean Park community which comprises duplexes,townhomes and single family homes.This apartment complex is not like anything around it and will change what we moved to Ocean Park to find. We would like to see the lot developed in some manner, preferably in a mixed-use, locally owned fashion that would be beneficial to both the community and the surrounding nature preserve. The current state of the land is unattractive and is not a sight we would like to represent our area as the gateway to Virginia Beach, but we do not see the Marlin Bay Project as the way to correct that. The developer has not made any effort to discuss options with the Ocean Park Civic League, and a representative of the developer has made multiple, threatening social media posts that essentially hold hostage the surrounding PHP undeveloped parcels in exchange for our support of the project. It is unprofessional and inappropriate, and not representative of who we want taking over our neighborhood. While my husband and I both work during Planning Commission meetings, we hope you will accept our input via email. Please do not support this zoning change for the Marlin Bay Project.Thank you for your attention and your consideration, and I apologize for the length of the letter! Sincerely, Melanie and Patrick Gazzolo Hoa N. Dao From: Gayle McHugh <utgayle72@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 6:57 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Fwd: Marlin Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Gayle McHugh <utgayle72@yahoo.com> Date:August 24, 2021 at 3:50:44 PM EDT To: Gayle Mchugh <utgayle72@yahoo.com> Subject: Marlin Bay To Whom It May Concern, I have been an Ocean Park homeowner since 2003. I oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4.The community density is already too high, new construction leads to flooding of existing structures, Shore Drive is a continual danger for traffic and pedestrians, and our quality of life is constantly challenged by visitors and renters that have no real connection to the neighborhood. In addition, I am exhausted by protesting further development in the Ocean Park neighborhood every year. Shore drive congestion gets worse and worse even without development of large land parcels like pleasure house point. Deaths on Shore Dr. increase every year be it motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, or simple ignorance. The few cute bungalows that remain all slowly turn into duplex condos like the one I live in. We compound the flooding issues by building enormous structures up 9 feet,flooding the smaller structures of our neighbors and complicating runoff. I plead the civic league to say No Way Marlin Bay. We beat the boat ramp dredging facility and we can beat this too. In the meantime, I'll consider the traffic light at the ocean park rescue sight a small victory. Thank you for representing our best interests and realizing the logistics, physical constraints, and remaining beauty of our wonderful neighborhood. With Warm Regards, Gayle McHugh DVM 757-816-7140 3716 Rockbridge Rd. Va Beach VA 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Alexander Lleces Jr <Blazenblazer247@Hotmail.com> Sent: Monday,August 30,2021 12:16 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: NOWAYMARLINBAY Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear madam/sir, My name is Alexander Lleces Jr, I live in Ocean Park at 3736 E Stratford Road. I have lived in Chicks Beach for a little over 10 years and in specifically Ocean Park for 4-5 of those years. I lived in the craziness of the main Chicks Beach for the other years and moved away from that. Seeing Chicks Beach, where you have apartments and condos everywhere on Pleasure Hose Road. I can first hand tell you navigating on the beach over there is like walking over people so you have no choice, but to go into the water to TRY to find a place to lay on the beach. It's just overcrowded. I moved to Ocean Park to raise my family and live a normal beach life. Where friends are an extended family. If this project is to come true, I already told the wife we are moving away. I like the neighborhood feel not a city within this small quaint neighborhood. Where almost everyone knows each other and looks out for each other. Please do not take this from my friends and family. This beach is crowded already. You build 197 units,that's 2-3 people per unit. You have an additional 394-591people. The beach is small as is and having that number on it is like having Floatopia every weekend. You already saw how that went not just on a local scale, but national news. I for one do not wish to make the news in a negative way again. Cancel this project and make the news in a positive way. Thank you for your time. God Bless. Respectively, Alexander Lleces Jr (757)748-6030 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Julie Pelletier <juliecpelletier@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2021 9:20 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: No Way Marlin Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am a resident of Aeries on the Bay in ocean park and I am writing to ask you to oppose the reasoning and development of the Marlin Bay community. The original zoning was created as a way to preserve our neighborhood and changing it would negative affect all of our residents but also the local nature. We take pride in keeping our bay beaches clean and well taken care of and that big of a building would be bringing so many people to our small natural bay beaches that it would make it particularly hard to keep it clean and uncrowned. One of the most wonderful thing about living here is the community. We are all close and mostly young families or active retires. We walk and bike everywhere and walk with our kids and dogs. Bringing such a big building to our neighborhood would completely change that small community feel and the Amin t of additional cars alone would surely make it less safe for us and our children. Lastly my main worry lies with the preservation of Pleasure House Natural Area. I walk there weekly and is residents keep is clean and well taken care of. Just last week I saw two bald eagles there. It is a sensitive natural area and a refuge to so many wild animals. It is also literally across the street from the Marlin Bay project. With 197 units which will have no yard, there is absolutely no doubt that the residents of that building will be using the nature preserve as their own personal back yard. How could this not negatively impact the wild life there? 197 units that can cross the street to party in such a big natural area. It will also negatively impact the neighborhood due to people not being able to enjoy the nature preserve and the attached play ground once it is overcrowded and likely trashed. Please, for the sake of our community, our city and the nature that surround us, do not allow for the reasoning of that lot and do not permit the consero of the Marlin Bay Development Sincerely, Julie Vance, Aeries on the Bay resident. Sent from my iPhone Hoa N. Dao From: James Vance <james.dvance@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2021 9:03 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear planning committee, I want to express my strong opposition to the planned "Marlin Bay" development in its current form of 197 units and a four and a half story parking garage. The area along shore drive is a place with a remarkable community and sense of history. With only a small amount of land on either side of the highway, a dense development threatens that sense of community by overcrowding the roads, parks and beach spaces. Additionally, dense condos will attract less family-age residents which could also change the character of character of area. Currently our neighborhood exhibits the result of the original zoning mandates. Single family homes,townhouses and moderately sized condos have kept a neighborhood that is safe, communal and vibrant. Such a dense new building would certainly change that. I hope you'll vote to maintain the remarkable character along Shore drive by voting no on Marlin Bay. Sincerely, James Vance Resident,Aeries on the bay Board Directors:of President: Danny Murphy / Vice President:Andrea Lindemann Ocean Park Civic League Treasurer:Blake Norris awn, P.O. Box 55385 Secretary:Betty Demers Past President:Ryan Cochran . ��� �� �.. Virginia Beach VA 23471 North Side Rep:Susan Lawson -e f�filV www.0 cl.or South Side Rep:Brian Snyder C I V 1 C l E'A G U E p g At-Large Rep: Don Caskie At-Large Rep:Jill Doczi August 29, 2021 Mr. Hoa Dao Planning Manager Department of Planning and Community Development 2875 Sabre ST, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA, 23452 RE: Marlin Bay Apartment Development& Initial June 9, 2021 Staff Planning Report Dear Mr. Dao: Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us last Thursday to review the initial June meeting Staff Planning Report on the Marlin Bay Development. Your professionalism and personal investment in your role are a considerable asset to the Planning Department and the City of Virginia Beach. As indicated during our meeting, I would request the following additions or alterations to any subsequent reports in order to provide a more complete analysis of the application. 1. The Evaluation and Recommendation section of the report leads with a truncated discussion for the proposed project density of 31.77. "While the proposed density at 31.77 units per acre is higher compared to developments in the immediate surrounding area". As we will explain below, the effective development density exceeds 40 units per acre. While the report is more complete when addressing zoning history (though there is an omission there addressed later),the report fails to offer a complete picture of the density of the properties surrounding the project and does not contain figures that would allow a determination of whether this project does in fact meet the Comprehensive Plan requirement of infill having"compatible density" and "preserving and protecting the character of established neighborhoods and achieving the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses.". While the report cites the Comprehensive Plan in several places, the report does not include the Comprehensive Plan language about density. What is significantly lacking is any analysis of the existing density of the neighborhood in order to determine the lowest reasonable density for future residential uses. A. What is the average density currently in the Ocean Park neighborhood? How exactly would the addition of nearly 200 units in a 1,400-unit neighborhood change density? B. What is the density of the adjacent and nearby properties? What is the average density for these properties? C. As noted, there are existing B-4 & A-18 zoned properties within the Ocean Park neighborhood. What is their proximity of these sites,when were they built,what is their density? 2. The B-2 Boat Sales lot will exist separately without redevelopment as a recommended proffer. "In no case shall the area labeled `Existing Boat Sales' and the associated parking lot be developed with any dwelling units."Page 6, Recommended Conditions for Conditional Use Permit The stated calculation of 31.77/acre does not capture the effective density which would exceed 40 units per acre even including the area of the Clipper Bay Drive paper street closure. Thus, the residential apartment development of 197 units will only occur on 4.88 acres of land and would result in a density of over 40 units per acre.Page 3, Evaluation and Recommendation 3. The rezoning and conditional use of the B-2 Boat Sales lot to B-4 (SD) is in significant conflict with the Comprehensive plan, Shore Drive Overlay District, Shore Drive Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines and city code for"mixed use" district zoning. A. As defined in city code, Sec. 111. Definitions, "Mixed use. Two (2) or more separate uses allowed as principal or conditional uses that are physically and functionally integrated with the same structure on one (1)zoning lot." The Boat Sales building is neither physically or functionally integrated with the same structure. To the contrary: In the proposal the boat sales building will be unattached and significantly separated by the primary roadway leading to and from the parking garage, building entrance and outdoor amenities.Page 12, Proposed Conceptual Site Layout. B. Per the proposal,the boat sales building is only slated to encompass one unit of 2,000 sq. ft. of retail or restaurant space which equates to only 16% of the space.Boat sales will occupy the remaining 10,000 sq. feet of the building. This does not represent functional integration. C. Furthermore,proposed plan indicates that additional space may be allocated to retail/restaurant, but this would only further exacerbate the report's stated deficiency of required parking at the boat sales building site: "With the exception of parking area for the existing boat sales dealership located between the building and public street,that does not conform with the Guidelines..."Page 3, Evaluation &Recommendation 4. As detailed extensively in the Mixed-Use Development Guidelines, adopted by City Council in 2004, the intent to "develop mixed use as a principal tool for redevelopment and as a preferred land use pattern in the Strategic Growth Areas (SGAs), and develop necessary zoning and other regulatory tools to encourage it" not in Suburban Focus Area 1 Shore Drive Corridor with adjacent residential single-family dwellings.Page 7, Comprehensive Plan Recommendations 5. As stated in the report in reference to the Comprehensive Plan and Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines several critical facts have been omitted: A. The project site is contiguous to the City's 118-acre Pleasure House Point Natural Area and as such requires "specific planning guidance" per the comprehensive plan: "Ensure that any development in the surrounding area is complementary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point." B. In addition, although the project site is technically within the "mixed zone" for the Shore Drive Corridor, it sits on the dividing line with the "green zone", Marlin Bay Drive.Page 3, Evaluation and Recommendation E. / ,. Mixed Zone '.... 1.8lue zor e ___ . 1. -4:.0.--..." fp i i.:-.), , agi, 6. And as noted during our meeting the PD-H1 Mariners Landing Townhouses adjacent to the south was omitted from the Zoning History Map. In order to give a full picture of the zoning which surrounds the property,the single-family dwellings to the south should also be included.Page 2, Background& Summary of Proposal Again,thank you for your honest consideration of these points in order to provide a more thorough and accurate report for the September 8th Planning Commission hearing. Very respectfully, Danny Murphy, President Ocean Park Civic League Cc: Mr. George Alcaraz Mr. David Bradley Mr. Whitney Graham Mr. Donald Horsley Mr. Michael Inman Ms. Dee Oliver Mr. David S. Redmond Mr. John H. Coston Ms. Robyn R. Klein Mr. Jack Wall Mr. David Weiner Hoa N. Dao From: Laurie Sorabella <lauriesorabella@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2021 3:58 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Oppose Zoning Change for Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon Mr. Dao, I am writing to oppose the ZONING CHANGE for the Marlin Bay Development on Shore Drive. I understand that the developer is requesting a change to B-4 Zoning. The City's website states that the"purpose of the B-4 Mixed Use District is to provide for retail and commercial service facilities and residential uses in those areas of the city where a mixture of such uses is desirable and recommended by the policies of the Comprehensive Plan." I am familiar with the City's Comprehensive Plan,and I do not recall that it recommends overdevelopment along flood prone Shore Drive. It is incumbent upon the Planning Commission to deny the zoning change request. Thank you for your consideration and for your dedication to the City of Virginia Beach, Laurie Sorabella 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Laura <contentedlb@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2021 1:16 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sirs and Madams: I am opposed to the development at Marlin Bay. It's my opinion that the city and residents (through donations,grants etc) can and should purchase and preserve the plots directly surrounding the Pleasure House House Point preservation area in a similar fashion to how PHP was preserved. The parcel at the corner of Shore Drive can be developed but with a close eye on density numbers in the Shore Drive corridor. Signed, Laura A. Baity 4507 Pleasure Avenue Virginia Beach,VA 23455 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Renee <lularoereneemiller@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 3:43 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: opposition to the Marlin Bay development from a new community member Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, I am writing to express my strong concern & opposition to the proposed Marlin Bay development. landed in Virginia as my final duty location in the Air Force, and moved to Virginia Beach from York County to allow my son to attend Great Neck Middle School. The trade off of moving to such an already congested area is the traffic and rate of vehicular accidents on Shore Drive (we live in Ocean Park). After moving here in March 2021, I learned of the Marlin Bay development project& .this will further congest an already overwhelmed residential area and greatly impact traffic and our quality of life. I recall a particularly awful accident in front of Taste that occurred in April timeframe& the school buses could not pass, and all parents were called and expected to navigate the very same road to pick up their kids from Thoroughgood Elementary. It took me 2 hours to reach my son, and we saw the carnage and twisted metal when we returned home and passed the accident site. He wonU t forget it, and the idea of an increase in traffic as a result of this Marlin Bay development is problematic and threatens our sense of community and safety. I thought we had found our home in Ocean Park after 28 years in the military. Please consider the impact to the existing families. Sincerely, Renee Miller Hoa N. Dao From: Dlrunyon <dlrunyon@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 2:15 PM To: Hoa N. Dao; Lin Runyon Subject: Opposition to Marlin Bay development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Virginia Beach government, I strongly oppose the Marlin Bay Development. 1 . Sea Level Rise and flood water should be a primary concern. The more you pave over, the less area there is for rain water to dissipate. FLOODING in the Shore Drive corridor is a huge issue now. This development will make the problem even worse. It takes very little rain to leave large puddles on Shore Drive. Cars driving through these puddles spray on other cars impacting their vision. It takes quite a while for the rain water to dissipate. Sometimes these puddles are still in the roadway hours later. 2. Traffic on Shore Drive is already increasing and making it more dangerous and difficult to turn onto Shore Drive. People start taking chances when there is a small "break" in the traffic. Accidents and injuries are serious consequences to additional traffic. Adding 197 new units means adding 197 or more vehicles onto Shore Drive. 3. This development is between two important JEB bases. Additional traffic may impact the military movement between the bases. 4 The design of the apartments, the height and the density is not in keeping with the unique Ocean Park neighborhood. Trying to squeeze in as many apartments as possible does not benefit anyone. The goal of any development should be to enhance the neighborhood and to have a positive impact on the environment. This project does neither. Please do not allow Marlin Bay development to build! Sincerely, Linda Parseghian Runyon 3248 Page Ave. #101 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Hoa N. Dao From: Lynn Lantz <Itlantz@cox.net> Sent: Friday,August 27, 2021 1:12 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, I am opposed to the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment complex for many reasons, not the least of which is its negative impact on our fragile Pleasure House Point. The addition of hundreds of cars, people, and animals is certain to deteriorate this precious resource and undermine its viability. Furthermore, the high density of this project is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood or the Comprehensive plan that should guide your decisions. Please send a message to developers that the almighty dollar does not dictate your actions. Protect Ocean Park. Thank you, Lynn Lantz Sent from my iPhone 1 From: Phil&Mary ROUS To: Hoa N.Dao Subject: Marlin Bay Project Opposition Concern Date: Friday,August 27,2021 12:23:21 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sir- I am a resident of Ocean Park for the last 10 years and I would like to express my strong opposition to the Marlin Bay Apartment complex that is proposed for Shore Dr. in Ocean Park. I am opposed to the change in zoning that would allow a project of this size to be built in our small, unique neighborhood. This property is not zoned for almost 200 units on only 4.2 acres. The impact on our neighborhood would be a negative one. I chose to live in Ocean Park because of it's unique qualities, its small town atmosphere and its unrushed neighborhood quality of life. This project will change this community in a profoundly negative way and I feel this is unfair to me as a resident (and property owner). I am not opposed to development but the density of this project is not in keeping with the neighborhood or the current zoning requirements for the neighborhood I bought into, live, and support through my taxes. This project has 31.77 units per acre. This is more than double anything built anywhere nearby. Recent projects in Ocean Park have been 14 units per acre. This is NOT lowest reasonable density called for in the Comprehensive Plan that is supposed to guide city decision making. This project is not consistent with the residential area around it. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new residential development be "consistent with the character of any residential uses in the surrounding area". The predominantly 4 story building will tower over the adjacent townhouses. The 41/2 story parking garage will be plainly visible over the 3 story portion of the building on Shore Dr. This project is out of step with the Ocean Park community which is comprised of duplexes, townhomes and single family homes. This apartment complex is not like anything around it and will change what I moved to Ocean Park to find. Please do not support this zoning change for the Marlin Bay Project. Thank you for your attention and your consideration. Sincerely, Phil Rous 3712B Jefferson Blvd Virginia Beach VA 23455 Sent from my iPad Hoa N. Dao From: Karen Lyons <klyons314@icloud.com> Sent: Friday,August 27, 2021 12:15 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Marlin Bay. Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Reader, I am writing to you today with the hope you will hear my voice and understand my opposition to the Marlin Bay project. I oppose the project for the increase in population density and for the project environment impact. The project is not a good fit for Shore Drive which already has more too much traffic volume. Please listen to your constituents. Karen Lyons 2500 Indian Hill Road Virginia Beach Sent from my iPad From yratra.rs4i.=aol coin Te: ttee./LIlat Subject: Marlin Bay Data: Monday,Aug...30,202111:SB:24 Off CAUTION'.This email or g mated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not cIck links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Is safe. Dear Mr.pan As I have previously written to you regarding the Marlin Bay Proposal, I wanted to address the issue again that I adamantly oppose the density and the 4-1/2 story parking garage planned for this project. It would degrade our community and blatantly goes against the Comprehensive Plan set forth to guide City decisions.This project is not compatible with Ocean Park,and is too dense. While I understand the desire of the owners of the property to develop their land and rightfully so, but not to the extent of destroying the integrity of our unique neighborhood.The whole purpose of the Shore Drive Advisory is to enhance the area. When a property owner resorts to bullying a tight community into thinking they are wanting to trade what they say is other buildable property in Ocean Park for us to look the other way while they denigrate the area saying they are trying to"preserve"those parcels is disgusting and unprofessional.Their comments,excuse me,borderline threats are as follows: 3:27 ..• IP OW) facebook.com 5:40 T .s11 = - Ocean Park neighbor•• • • • • Off C110 aa/• •a aV • • V V •V ♦•a.•• a - 31 m ' ! McLeskey Ocean Park Holdings I thought it would be helpful to show the properties that we are trying to preserve as part of this process. All of these properties can be built on "by-right." Hope this explains it. The properties next to Pleasure House Point and Crab Creek are way more valuable to the community and the environment than the trailer yard and the old metal building. The opportunity to save these lots from development is now, before the Marlin Bay vote. After the vote is over, it will be too late. Would you rather preserve a dilapidated site on a major thoroughfare, or pristine wooded property nit to Plnaca inn I-ani icn Pnint7 1A/hat 'c thA niri I Mat16 ltd I IL.ILA )UI t. ! ItJbtJla f V I I Il 41 >r V 1 04♦ J tl It,. VIb1 saying? Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it? lbw 7.0 �® knocillallr Alf , .,Y 11111174 tit .s a 7 .000 30 '. 10 duia+.. lb r . f 0 " 4 Answers 6 Like cp Answer Share * Cr)) i - i si n ? 0C:: ___. Obviously someone is lacking in integrity. For the record,we are not trying to"preserve a dilapidated site".We are trying to preserve our safety,community,and the environment intended and approved in the establishment of Ocean Park,as well as,the Shore Drive Corridor. Respectfully, Patricia Hassell Namaste Hoa N. Dao From: Jeff Kimball <jeff.kimballl @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:04 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Re: Marlin Bay Recommendation Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Mr. Dao, I would like to reiterate my STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSITION to the Marlin Bay proposal as it stands. In the words of Councilman Jones, "It's just too dense." The residents of Ocean Park would appreciate your support in rejecting the rezoning proposal as it stands. We will not forget your support. Sincerely, Jeff Kimball Ocean Park Homeowner On Wed,Jun 23, 2021 at 12:03 PM Jeff Kimball<jeff.kimballl@gmail.com>wrote: Dear Mr. Dao, I am flummoxed to learn that you have recommended the approval of the rezoning request for the Marlin Bay project despite the following incontrovertible issues: -Only 3 letters of support and over 200 letters of opposition to the proposal (including my email to you on May 19, 2021) - Unanimous opposition from the Ocean Park Civic League -Twice,the Bayfront Advisory Commission has failed to support the proposal -Density that is not in line with the character of the neighborhood As a homeowner in Ocean Park since 1995, I have always been suspicious of the city government's close relationship with developers that has resulted in negative quality of life changes to the residents of Virginia Beach. By ignoring the issues of the opposition to this rezoning, you are only reinforcing my suspicions. You work for the citizens of Virginia Beach, not the developers. Zoning laws are in place for a reason, and the spirit of those zoning restrictions should be honored. I do not oppose all development of this parcel, only the extreme scale of this one. I am happy to discuss this further. Sincerely, Jeff Kimball 2173 Woodlawn Avenue 757-343-5783 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Bayne Keenan <BKeenan@incrediblesupply.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:07 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: Planning Administration; City of Virginia Beach Mayors Office;James L.Wood; Norman Holcomb; Michael Berlucchi; Barbara Henley; Louis R. Jones;John Moss;Aaron R. Rouse; Guy K.Tower; Rosemary C.Wilson; Sabrina D. Wooten; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; dbradley36@cox.net; wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com;johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: Marlin Bay Opposition Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I believe that the Marlin Bay Development will fundamentally change the nature and character of the Shore Drive corridor. It will set a terrible precedent for inappropriately high density that could open the door for more similar projects in the future. The properties at Marlin Bay Drive should be developed in accordance with the existing zoning and City planning guidelines:townhouses, duplexes and single-family homes, not a large high-density multi-family using erroneous mixed-use rezoning. I strongly oppose the Marlin Bay Development and ask that you do support this zoning change for the Marlin Bay project. Thank you for your attention and your consideration. V/R Bayne Keenan INCREDIBLE SUPPLY&LOGISTICS(ISL) Chief Operating Officer E: bkeenan@incrediblesupply.com 0:757-955-8077 I D:757-802-7103 I C:757-759-8201 Linkedln:Bayne Keenan's Profile I #BuiltToServe 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Brandy's Gmail <bswinko@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:21 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: Opposed to Marlin Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom it may concern, I am a long time resident of Virginia Beach and the Ocean Park Neighborhood and Civic League Member. I oppose the Marlin Bay Project. The area is already extremely congested as it is with multiple condominium units and apartments along this small stretch of Virginia Beach in the Shore Drive area. We have lost so many single family homes to condominiums in tight spaces. We already have Pleasure House Point and the Lynnhaven Boat Ramp Facility that have created even more congestion and brought a very heavy rate of vehicle traffic throughout most of the day and evening. Please consider moving this project to a less congested area. The traffic in the area has made it almost impossible to cross the street by foot to access the beach. The traffic signals are not all red when pedestrians are crossing causing accidents and near misses. A woman with her dog was hit by a vehicle during a hit and run and there have been several very close calls. Another couple was hit by a car crossing the walkway thinking they had the right away. Traffic is not only congested in the area with so many condominium units in this area it is also moving very fast as people race cars down shore drive. I am strongly opposed to the Marlin Bay Project. Sincerely, Brandy Swinko Resident, Tazewell Rd, Virginia Beach, VA Hoa N. Dao From: OPDS <opds@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:26 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: OPPOSED to Marlin Bay Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, I am opposed to the Marlin Bay Project. There are too many condominiums in the area and not enough single family homes. The traffic is very heavy in the area due to the large number of condos along shore drive. There is an even greater number of people and traffic coming from people visiting the Lynnhaven Boat Ramp Facility and Pleasure House Point Park in the area. I am strongly opposed to the Marlin Bay Project. Sincerely, Jesse Swinko Resident, Tazewell Rd, Virginia Beach, VA From:Ann Tatman Bennis<anntbennis@gmail.cor, > Sent:Saturday, August 28, 2021 6:34 PM Subject: Citizen opposition to request to approve rezoning request for Marlin Bay Apartments CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Ann Bennis and I am a longtime resident of Ocean Park. I am also a registered voter and I act on that privilege at every opportunity. I am writing to you to update*** and reinforce my OPPOSITION to the request by Marlin Bay Apartments to increase density from B2-PDH-1 to conditional B-4. My concerns are that the proposed apartments more than double the accepted standard for units per acre. HIGH DENSITY is not in the best interest of my community. I am concerned about the environmental impact the building will have on PLEASURE HOUSE POINT which is an asset to our City and must be protected. I am seriously concerned about the PARKING ISSUES this density will create for PHP and the surrounding neighborhoods. There will also be a SIGNIFICANT BURDEN on our EMS/FIRE Services. I respect long term planning and progress for our City, however, approving this change is NOT IN COMPLIANCE with our approved VIRGINIA BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ***Let them build within the current scope of designated zoning. ***After reading the regulations, I do not see how a retail operation like Lynnhaven Boats can be the authority to approve this request. I understand that the City and the citizens would benefit by more revenue. However,the revenue generation should be in line with the stated community values and SUPPORT not ERODE the quality of life we enjoy. DO NOT DISMISS OUR COMMUNITY INPUT. Thank you for representing my concerns in this matter. Ann Bennis Hoa N. Dao From: fchristie3 fchristie3@cox. <fchristie3@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:00 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Cc: Scott Ayers;joeb@hbaonline.com; Andy Broyles; pdavenport9@cox.net; Louis R.Jones; dredmond@divaris.com; Robert "Bobby" J. Tajan; mthomas@decklaw.com Subject: Marlin Bay Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed multi-family/commercial use at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. While many of us along the Bay Front Corridor are not opposed to seeing these properties redeveloped, it is our desire and goal to see the properties developed with a project that complements the surrounding residential areas. As you have indicated in your previous report this area is identified as a Suburban Focus Area in the Comprehensive Plan; a plan that recommends low to medium residential density and development of structures that are complementary to surrounding uses. • The proposed development of a four and 1/2 story building(s), with 197 units contained within is not low to medium density. Low to medium density is 12 to 18 units to the acre,which is with in keeping of the existing densities in the area. The proposed height and bulk of the building is not complementary or in keeping with the existing residential and or commercial uses in the area.The height and size of the building will overwhelm existing residential uses. • The proposed reduction of impervious area indicated in the report looks good on paper, but until the proposed improvements, including storm water management, are made to this section of Shore Drive there will be increased problems with drainage and flooding.To predict that this section of Shore Drive is currently under design review, (perhaps at 30%design) and the project is expected to begin in 2024 is unrealistic. Shore Drive Corridor improvements Phase 3 (Great Neck Road to the eastern side to the Lesner Bridge were scheduled in 2019 and have not begun to date). Filing the site to accomplish a 7 foot elevation will cause adjacent properties to flood. • This is a small issue to raise but one needs only look at the "iconic feature"that was proffered on the former Duck In site to image the visual amenity(Condition 7). • As a side note the property across the street, noted#5 on the zoning map,first came in as a 4 story building with parking on the first floor, office on the second floor, and multi-family on floors 3 and 4. The developer was asked to redesign the project to be more consistent with and complement the surrounding area as staff could not support the request for of a 4 story building and the size of the building. As I have stated I am not opposed to development and redevelopment in the Bay Front Corridor(Shore Drive) - in fact I welcome it. I am opposed to development that is not consistent with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay,the 1997 Uli study, and the Design Guidelines. 1 Please share this information with he Planning Commission.Thank you for your time. Faith Christie 2 From: Faith Christie<fchristie3@cox.net> Sent:Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:03 PM To: Planning Administration<PlanAdmn@vbgov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed multi-family/commercial use at the intersection of Shore Drive and Marlin Bay Drive. While many of us along the Bay Front Corridor are not opposed to seeing these properties redeveloped, it is our desire and goal to see the properties developed with a project that complements the surrounding residential areas. As you have indicated in your previous report this area is identified as a Suburban Focus Area in the Comprehensive Plan; a plan that recommends low to medium residential density and development of structures that are complementary to surrounding uses. • The proposed development of a four and 1/2 story building(s), with 197 units contained within is not low to medium density. Low to medium density is 12 to 18 units to the acre, which is with in keeping of the existing densities in the area. The proposed height and bulk of the building is not complementary or in keeping with the existing residential and or commercial uses in the area. The height and size of the building will overwhelm existing residential uses. • The proposed reduction of impervious area indicated in the report looks good on paper, but until the proposed improvements, including storm water management, are made to this section of Shore Drive there will be increased problems with drainage and flooding. To predict that this section of Shore Drive is currently under design review, (perhaps at 30% design) and the project is expected to begin in 2024 is unrealistic. Shore Drive Corridor improvements Phase 3 (Great Neck Road to the eastern side to the Lesner Bridge were scheduled in 2019 and have not begun to date). Filing the site to accomplish a 7 foot elevation will cause adjacent properties to flood. • This is a small issue to raise but one needs only look at the"iconic feature"that was proffered on the former Duck In site to image the visual amenity (Condition 7). • As a side note the property across the street, noted #5 on the zoning map, first came in as a 4 story building with parking on the first floor, office on the second floor, and multi-family on floors 3 and 4. The developer was asked to redesign the project to be more consistent with and complement the surrounding area as staff could not support the request for of a 4 story building and the size of the building. As I have stated I am not opposed to development and redevelopment in the Bay Front Corridor(Shore Drive) - in fact I welcome it. I am opposed to development that is not consistent with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay, the 1997 Uli study, and the Design Guidelines. Please share this information with he Planning Commission. Thank you for your time. Faith Christie Sent from Mail for Windows Hoa N. Dao From: Jim Palmer <jwpalmer96@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 11:52 AM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: No Way Marlin Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The proposed apartment complex is a complete opposite of what Ocean Park looks and feels like. We moved into OP three years ago for permanency. While we realize the need for economic growth, etc please consider residential structures that are in line with Ocean Park. It's quite ridiculous that something of this scope (Marlin Bay Apt) is even being considered. JP 1 Hoa N. Dao From: KARLIE PRITCHARD <kprit001@odu.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 1:55 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: No way Marlin bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Shore drive is the last place for the beach locals to enjoy their life and live peacefully without the terror of tourists and violence like the VB oceanfront has become. The development of the parking garage will outrage locals and ultimately drive them out of their home. Hoa N. Dao From: DJU <djuras@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 12:32 PM To: Hoa N. Dao; City Council Cc: galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; dbradley36@cox.net;wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com;johnhcoston@gmail.com; RKIeinVBPC@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Subject: DO NOT REZONE MARLIN BAY Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings We are Ocean Park homeowners and we STRONGLY oppose the request to increase density and rezone Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Dr. and Marlin Bay from B2/PDH1 to conditional B4. While we am not opposed to all development—we do want to ensure it is in line with the community and quality of life here—and fits within the character of the community. We would never have bought a home in this area had we known the city would consider, much less allow,such unwarranted, oversized rezoning. Please do not support the request to rezone this property with such a drastic overdevelopment. If not now, when social distancing has become an important way of life, will zoning bodies and developers learn that providing people appropriate space and density is an more important criteria that profit. Furthermore—the flooding that we have all witnessed throughout the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast - is an important lesson. We CANNOT and SHOULD NOT keep over building on our infrastructure. The Shore Drive area already has flooding and congestion problems. Overbuilding will lead to more frequent issues, greater stress on the community and impart a negative impact on the quality of life for the current residents who moved here within the existing zoning codes. This is a lovely enclave in Virginia Beach and we MUST NOT set a precedent that will continue to detract from its family and community vibe. While we cannot be there in person—someone in the planning department should have taken a closer look at the calendar and realized there might be conflicts—we can assure you our opposition is as strong as if we were there in person and the decisions made at this meeting will impact our view of our representatives in the same way. Respectfully David and Rebecca Unger 1 From: Blake Norris <norrisblake1(a�outlook.com> Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 7:31 PM To: Planning Administration <PlanAdmnvbqov.com> Subject: Marlin Bay Opposition CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Virginia Beach City Planners, As with many of my neighbors and others utilizing the Shore Drive area as home, I OPPOSE the request to increase density and rezoning for Marlin Bay Apartment from B-2 PDH-1 to Conditional B-4. I am NOT OPPOSED to any development but want to ensure it is in line with our community and maintains our quality of life here. Best regards, Blake Norris Ocean Park Civic League Treasurer 3806 Jefferson Blvd Va. Beach, VA 23455 757-621-2074 Hoa N. Dao From: Jim Swallow <jim.swallowl @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 9:34 AM To: Hoa N. Dao; galcarazvbpc@icloud.com; dbradley36@cox.net; wgrahamVBPC@icloud.com; horsley_don@yahoo.com; branch.oliver@gmail.com; mainman@inmanstrickler.com; johnhcoston@gmail.com; dredmondvbpc@icloud.com;jckwall@aol.com; RKleinVBPC@icloud.com; dweiner@batchelder-brick.com Cc: president@opcl.org; City of Virginia Beach Mayors Office; Norman Holcomb; Michael Berlucchi; Barbara Henley; Louis R.Jones;John Moss; Aaron R. Rouse; Guy K. Tower; Rosemary C.Wilson; Sabrina D.Wooten Subject: Opposition to Proposed Marlin Bay Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Marlin Bay Development on Shore Drive. This proposal is not consistent with current zoning regulations and changing the zoning regulations to support this project will have immediate and long term adverse effects to the shore drive corridor. My main concerns are impacts to the existing Shore Drive infrastructure, Pleasure House Point, and Ocean Park's unique character. The existing infrastructure does not support the magnitude of traffic today, and the addition of 197 units will only make traffic worse. If the zoning is changed for this project, what will stop other large development projects from being approved and their second and third order impacts? I am also concerned with long term impacts to the Pleasure House Point and the investment made by the city and Chesapeake Bay Foundation. The Comprehensive Plan states that any development of the surrounding area to be complimentary with regard to both design and land use to the natural resource and open space amenity provided by Pleasure House Point. This development will impact the existing parking along Marlin Bay Drive and I am also concerned with the potential environmental impact to Pleasure House Point. Shore Drive is supposed to be the gateway to the resort area. What sort of message are we sending to out of town visitors when they are sitting in bumper to bumper traffic with the only thing they can see out of their windows are tall multi-story apartment buildings? I have done that traveling to Ocean City, MD and have vowed never to go back and hope the city of Virginia Beach does not want out of town visitors to our city to have the same experience. Please vote NO on the proposed Marlin Bay Development and save Ocean Park's endearing character. Jim Swallow Ocean Park 1 Hoa N. Dao From: JAIME DUCA <jduca001@odu.edu> Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 1:23 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: No way Marlin Bay Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello! My name is Jaime Duca and I am writing in opposition to the Marlin Bay complex. As a resident of Shore Drive, I was drawn to the area based on the decreased population compared to the Oceanfront. I believe it will devalue many homes in the area and obstruct views. Not to mention the tedious construction happening in the area for the residents. It's important that the committee take into account factors outside of the monetary value associated with construction. It is a quaint community with members who seem to strongly oppose the project. I urge you to look past the dollar signs and consider the negative impact this will have on residents in the area. Thank you for your time and consideration, Jaime Duca 1 Hoa N. Dao From: Andrina Fischer <solblu757@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 10:00 PM To: Hoa N. Dao Subject: 3836 Ocean Tides Drive Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Dao, My husband and I own the home at 3836 Ocean Tides Drive. It is the last end unit townhouse on the strip of townhomes that would back up to the proposed complex. I've read a portion of your report on the proposed Marlin Bay Apartment Complex and your recommended approval of the street closure and zoning changes required to make this possible. We are curious as to how you came to your decision to recommend approval, when everything speaks against this project. From my understanding, there are hundreds of letters from residents of Ocean Park opposing this project. The proposal is NOT consistent from what I understand about the Shore Drive Corridor Design, and the complex would not blend into the community; it would be a behemoth overshadowing the adjacent properties, including our home. Currently, when one looks out our back door, there is an empty lot just behind our fence. According to this proposed plan, the apartment complex main access road would run directly behind our fence. The four-stories - potentially taller than 50 feet - would tower over our home and eliminate sunshine and any privacy we currently have. The noise of constant traffic, the inability to enjoy any privacy in our backyard, the inconvenience of having to drive up Marlin Bay drive and make a u-turn to get to our street due to the closure of Ocean Tides Drive access, the trash bins, the proposed kayak/canoe storage facility DIRECTLY next to our home (unless we buy the adjacent lost when the city offers it to us) - all of these things will impact the quality of life not only for us but for our immediate neighbors. This will also impact us financially by reducing the value of our home! Will the developer or the city reimburse us for the financial loss and for ruining the enjoyment of our own property? Again, I'd like to understand how anyone would consider approving this project. The developer needs to go back to the drawing board and design something that blends better with the community. Additional townhomes or two-story duplexes would fit well. We aren't against progress or development, but the Marlin Bay project is totally inappropriate density for that sized lot. So many people I know can only shake their heads as they drive down Shore Drive and wonder who could have possibly approved some of the projects there. I don't understand the process, or how you came to recommend approval despite overwhelming resident opposition (the ones who have everything to lose and nothing to gain from this), and I doubt that you can or will retract your recommendation; however, I do believe that you owe those would be most adversely affected by this project an explanation as to why your decision went against zoning, planning, logic and public opinion. Sincerely, Andrina Fischer 2 Hoa N. Dao From: Elise Dunton <elise.dunton@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:20 AM To: Alex Dunton; Hoa N. Dao Subject: Opposition of the Marlin Bay project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged r....____...._ CAUTION.This email originated from outside of the City of Virginia Beach.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, As homeowners off of Shore Dr, my husband and I strongly oppose the Marlin Bay project. We moved to Cape Henry Shores a year ago from Shadowlawn specifically to live in a less dense community while still living somewhere we can bike and walk to retail/restaurants. By adding roughly 200 units in one project, which is more than double the current density of any project nearby, I fear the amount of traffic will decrease desirability and eventually property value, and increase potential deaths as we've noticed many drivers struggle to follow posted speed limits already. Please do not open the door to turning Shore Dr into another "oceanfront". Very respectfully, Elise Dunton, MRP, e-PRO Realtor- HRRA Circle of Excellence Long& Foster 800 Laskin Rd Virginia Beach,VA 23451 Cell: 540-604-1022 Licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia i Gentlemen, My name is Roy Martin. My wife Lynda and myself have been homeowners in Ocean Park for over thirty years. We strongly oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive & Marlin Bay from B2-PHD-1 to conditional B-4. Lynda is an experienced Realtor and we do not oppose all development.The proposed apartment complex,however, would further erode the open space in our community and contribute to a nightmare traffic burden on Shore Drive, The Gateway to Virginia Beach. A significant negative impact on our quality of life would result from such a development. You only need look at the beauty and public enjoyment of Pleasure House Point and The Brock Center against the original planned development to judge the potential impact of this vote. Please do the right thing on our behalf! Refuse the requested rezoning! Sincerely, Roy Martin Gentlemen, My name is Roy Martin. My wife Lynda and myself have been homeowners in Ocean Park for over thirty years. We strongly oppose the request to increase density and rezoning for the proposed Marlin Bay Apartments on Shore Drive&Marlin Bay from B2-PHD-1 to conditional B-4. Lynda is an experienced Realtor and we do not oppose all development.The proposed apartment complex,however,would further erode the open space in our community and contribute to a nightmare traffic burden on Shore Drive,The Gateway to Virginia Beach. A significant negative impact on our quality of life would result from such a development. You only need look at the beauty and public enjoyment of Pleasure House Point and The Brock Center against the original planned development to judge the potential impact of this vote. Please do the right thing on our behalf! Refuse the requested rezoning! Sincerely, Roy Martin M. APPOINTMENTS 5/31 MEMORIAL COMMITTEE 2040 VISION TO ACTION COMMUNITY COALITION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS ADVISORY COMMISSION BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE CLEAN COMMUNITY COMMISSION COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION GRANT(COG) REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATION REVIEW PANEL OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY COMMITTEE OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD TRANSITION AREA/INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE URBAN AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WETLANDS BOARD N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P. ADJOURNMENT The Agenda(including all backup documents) is available at 1lttps://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/city-clerk/city-council under the eDocs Document Archive. If you would like to receive by email a list of the agenda items for each Council meeting, please submit your request to TChelius(cvbgov.com or call 385-4303. Citizens who wish to speak can sign up either in-person or virtually via WebEx. Anyone wishing to participate virtually, must follow the two-step process provided below: 1. Register for the WebEx at: https://vbgov.webex.com/vbgov/onstage/g.php?MTID=e736095278b 163 ec40176f68957ddcb7l 2. Register with the City Clerk's Office by calling 757-385-4303 prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 19, 2021. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS DATE: 10/05/2021 PAGE: 1 B E AGENDA R H ITEM# SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L H 0 W V W U E L 1 R T 1 A O CDNC O M O O L C O C Y L ONOUWS A HE EMES S EGNE I R Y B S S ERN TN 1. CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING A. MAYOR'S IDEA COMMISSION Dr.Amelia Ross- Hammond B. FLOOD PROTECTION PROGRAM Robert McNab,Professor BOND REFERENDUM ANALYSIS —Economics (ODU REPORT) 11-V11. A-E CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED CERTIFIED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL and FORMAL SESSIONS APPROVED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y' September 21,2021 2. SPECIAL SESSION APPROVED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y September 23,2021 G. MAYOR'S PRESENTATION I. RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION James L.Wood H. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. CANDIDATES FOR CITY COUNCIL 28 SPEAKERS VACANCY—LYNNHAVEN a. Linwood O.Branch b. Holly T.Cuellar c. Carla V.Hesseltine d. Richard Maddox PUBLIC HEARINGS I APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS 5 SPEAKERS FROM THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT(ARPA) 2. ACQUISITION, BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION a. Temporary and Permanent Easements re 1 SPEAKER Thaila Creek Greenway Phase 3 Project, CIP#100415(formerly CIP#4-079) b. Temporary and Permanent Easements I SPEAKER necessary re Sandbridge Road-Nimmo Parkway Phase VII-A Project, CIP #100356(formerly CIP#2-078) ADD Resolution to RENAME the Thalia ADDED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ON Emergency Medical Services Station as the "James L. Wood Thalia Emergency Medical Station" (Requested by Mayor Dyer, Vice Mayor Wilson, Council Members Berlucchi, Henley, Holcomb, Jones,Moss,Tower,and Wooten) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS DATE: 10/05/2021 PAGE: 2 B E AGENDA R H ITEM# SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L H 0 W V W U E L J R T 1 A 0 CDNC OMO 0 L C O C Y L ONO U W S A T HE EME S S E ONE I R YBS S ERN TN K.1. Ordinance to ADD Chapter 35.5 of the City ADOPTED,BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Code Section re Commercial Property CONSENT Assessed Clean Energy (C-Pace) Financing and Resiliency Program (Requested by Vice Mayor Wilson, Council Members Berlucchi and Tower) K.2. Ordinance to AMEND Section 2-5.1 of the ADOPTED,BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y City Code re members of the Historical CONSENT Review Board with professional training or equivalent experience in certain related fields K.3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the ADOPTED 10-0 Y Y Y YYY Y Y Y Y acquisition of property in fee simple for the construction of a City-Operated dredge transfer station re serve the Eastern Branch Lynnhaven River Dredging Project,CIP#100152,either by agreement or condemnation K.4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary ADOPTED,BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y encroachments into a portion of City CONSENT right-of-way known as Marlin Lane, adjacent to 2477 Sandfiddler Road re retain and maintain fifteen(15)trees and four(4)bushes K.5. Resolution to ADD Student Members to ADOPTED,BY 10-0 Y Y Y YYY Y Y Y Y the Virginia Beach Clean Community CONSENT Commission (Requested by Council Member Holcomb) K.6. Resolution to PROVIDE for May 31st ADOPTED,BY 10-0 Y Y Y YYY Y Y Y Y Memorial Committee Membership and CONSENT responsibilities K.7. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City ADOPTED,BY 10-0 Y Y Y YYY Y Y Y Y Manager to EXECUTE a Memorandum of CONSENT Understanding (MOU) with Atlantis Preservation LP and ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a$25,000 donation from Atlantis Preservation LP to the FY 2021-22 Parks and Recreation Operating Budget re implement programming for residents of the Atlantis Apartment K.A. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a$200,000 ADOPTED 10-0 Y Y Y YYY Y Y Y Y Grant to the Hampton Roads Workforce Council re mental health worker recruitment and retention bonuses (Requested by Mayor Dyer,Vice Mayor Wilson, Council Members Berlucchi, Holcomb,and Wooten) K.9. Ordinance to AWARD a $5,000 ADOPTED,BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Community Service micro-grant to the CONSENT Hispanic Resource Center of Coastal Virginia re support the Hispanic Heritage Celebration (Requested by Council Member Berlucchi) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS DATE: 10/05/2021 PAGE: 3 B AGENDA R H ITEM# SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L H 0 W V W U E L J R T I A 0 CDNC O M O O L C 0 C Y L ONOUWS A T HE EME S S E ONE I R YBS S ERN TN K.10. Ordinance to ACCEPT $42,709 from ADOPTED,BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y the Department of Criminal Justice CONSENT Services to the FY 2021-22 Human Services Operating Budget re Human Services Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Division K.1 l Resolution to RENAME the Thalia ADOPTED,BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Emergency Medical Services Station as CONSENT the "James L. Wood Thalia Emergency Medical Station" (Requested by Mayor Dyer,Vice Mayor Wilson, Council Members Berlucchi, Henley,Holcomb,Jones,Moss,Tower, and Wooten) 1..1. LYNNHAVEN DIVE CENTER,LLC APPROVED/ 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y /BLUE WATER PROPERTIES,LLC CONDITIONED/AS & SLMD,LLC for a Conditional Use PROFERRED,BY Permit re vocational school and a CONSENT Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Regulations re lot width at 2204 Poplar Point Road& 1413 North Great Neck Road DISTRICT 5 -- LYNNHAVEN K.2. TVT I, LLC, D/B/A TOWER APPROVED/ 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y VENTURES C/O LOU MODIFIED,BY KATZERMAN / PLEASANT CONSENT VALLEY ASSOCIATES, LLC,for a Modification of Conditions to a Conditional Use Permit re communication tower at 4221 Pleasant Valley Road DISTRICT I — CENTERVILLE(Approved December 2,2008) K.3. YVONNE LEE HYPES LUCAS & APPROVED/BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ESTHER DIANE SCHNEIDER, CO- CONSENT EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF VARENIA CRAIG HYPES RYAN for a Change of Zoning from B-1 Neighborhood Business District to R-5R Residential Resort District re single-family dwelling at 4504 Guam Street DISTRICT 4 — BAYS IDE K.4. JENITA WHITE for a Conditional Use APPROVED/ 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Permit re family day-care home at 1109 CONDITIONED,BY Malcoms Way DISTRICT 2 — CONSENT KEMPSVILLE K 5 Ordinances to AMEND City Zoning APPROVED,BY 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ordinances(CZO): CONSENT a. Section 602 re dimensional requirements in Apartment Districts b. Section 1306 re ADD Assembly Uses as Conditional Uses in Historic and Cultural Districts CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS DATE: 10/05/2021 PAGE: 4 B AGENDA R H ITEM# SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L H 0 W V W U E L J R T I A O CDNC OM 0 0 L C O C Y L ONO U W S A T H E EME S S E ON E I R Y B S S ER N T N M. APPOINTMENTS RESCHEDULED BY C ON S E N S U S 2040 VISION TO ACTION COMMUNITY COALITION BEACHES AND WATERWAYS ADVISORY COMMISSION BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE CLEAN COMMUNITY COMMISSION COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION GRANT(COG)REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATION REVIEW PANEL OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY COMMITTEE OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PROCESS IMPROVEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD RESORT ADVISORY COMMISSION SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD TRANSITION AREA/INTERFACILITY TRAFFIC AREA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE URBAN AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WETLANDS BOARD AUDIT COMMITTEE Appointed: 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Guy K.Tower- (Representing City Council Member) Unexpired Term thru 4/30/2023 BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ADVISORY Appointed: 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y COMMITTEE David Plum Unexpired Term thru 6/30/2022 +3 Year Term 7/1/2022-6/30/25 CLEAN COMMUNITY COMMISSION Appointed: 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Lon Carpenter David Leader 3 Year Term 10/5/2021-9/30/2024 Edna Baehre-Kolovani Unexpired Term thru 3/31/2022 +3 Year Term 4/1/2022-3/31/2025 DEFERRED COMPENSATION Appointed: 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y BOARD Diane Portlock- (Representing Payroll Administrator) No Term CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS DATE: 10/05/2021 PAGE: 5 B AGENDA R H ITEM# SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L H 0 W V W U E L J R T I A 0 CDNC O M O O L C O C Y L ONOUWS A T HE EME S S EONE I R Y B S S ERN T N HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING Appointed: 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y DISTRICT COMMISSION N.D."Rocky"Holcomb- (Representing Alternate Member) No Term HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD Appointed: 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Jacqueline Feaglin- (Representing Licensed Real Estate Salesperson or Broker) 4 Year Term 10/5/2021—9/30/2025 MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL Appointed: 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Karlaa Gregory Herman Valentine Cavelle Mollineaux 2 Year Term 10/5/2021—9/30/2023 OCEANA LAND USE CONFORMITY Appointed: 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y COMMITTEE John D.Moss- (Representing City Council Member) Unexpired Term thru 8/31/2026 Rosemary Wilson- (Representing Vice Mayor) No Term CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Appointed: 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 5/31 MEMORIAL COMMITTEE Michael Berlucchi Sabrina Wooten COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD N.D."Rocky"Holcomb N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 8:43 PM 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q. RECONVENE FORMAL SESSION 8:50 PM 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CERTIFICATION CERTIFIED 10-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y R. APPOINTMENT OF LYNNHAVEN DISTRICT CITY COUNCIL MEMBER LINWOOD BRANCH APPOINTED 6 Y Y Y Y Y Y RICHARD MADDOX 4 Y Y Y Y S. ADJOURNMENT 9:08 PM OPEN DIALOGUE 4 SPEAKERS 9:20 PM