Port Norfolk Environmental Studies (PDF documents)
Download Port Norfolk School Site Appraisal
Original Neighborhood Conceptual Plan (44 homes)
Current Conceptual Neighborhood Plan (23 homes)
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
| Q: What are the steps the developer must take from the meetings, through property sales, through permitting, to potentially conclude with the construction of the homes? |
A: Here are the steps a developer must take:
- Conceptual Review of Project
- Pre-Application Conference
- Applicant submits Preliminary Major Subdivision ( must include all calculations for drainage)
- Planning Commission Approval of Major Subdivision (PC must approve if requirements of Zoning Ordinance are met). Historic Preservation Commission approval is not required for the platting of proposed new street.
- Applicant submits Final Major Subdivision
- Applicant records final plat
- Applicant submits construction drawings to Building Official for review and approval
- Applicant submits individual site plans and building permit requests for each lot
- Building permits issued
- Various inspections made during construction
- After final inspections are approved a Certificate of Occupancy is issued
|
| Q: Is there any official action that will be taken as a result of the time period contained in the MOI expiring (August 30, 2010)? |
| A: The expiration of the MOI did not trigger any official, public action. The developer has provided the City with notification that he wants to proceed with the purchase. The next official public action would be consideration by City Council of a development agreement transferring the property to one of its affiliate development partners such as the Economic Development Authority or Housing Authority. Such an agreement would include a Sales and Purchase Contract. This consideration would occur during a regular public meeting of City Council and be duly advertised. |
| Q: When can the developer begin applying for the various permits that will be needed if this development proceeds? |
| A: The developer can begin applying for permits only if he has legal control of the site under a Sales and Purchase Contract. Currently the City of Portsmouth owns the property and the developer has no right or ability to apply for permits. |
| Q: What guarantees will be in place regarding the pricing points for the new homes? |
| A: This project is intended to be market rate, “For Sale” residential units. As such, unit prices will be set by the market. |
| Q: What is the role of the Historic Resources Commission in this development? |
| A: Approval of the construction on the lots facing Douglas Avenue. No approval is required for the platting of the street. |
| Q: Does the City have any interest in restoring the property to wetlands? |
| A: There are no wetlands on the site. |
| Q: Under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, is a permit to construct on this site required and under what constraints? |
| A: Building Permit only. Driveways and sidewalks on private property must be pervious pavement unless water table or soil conditions are such that pervious pavement will not be successful. |
| Q: In a floodplain, is a permit required for construction? |
| A: • Building Permit only. Elevation Certificates will be required at framing stage and before final inspections are given. |
| Q: If the homes are built and the site floods, what are the City’s responsibilities to the residents? |
| A: None. |
| Q: The Project Engineer for Hull’s Creek Properties is also a member of the Planning Commission. Would it be a conflict of interest for him to participate when the Planning Commission considers this project? Would it be improper for the Planning Commission to consider the project? |
| A: As per the City Attorney, the Virginia State and Local Conflict of Interest Act (the "Conflicts Act," which the City Attorney helped to draft when it was first enacted by the General Assembly), defines what comprises a "conflict of interest," and it imposes certain requirements that must be followed when there is a conflict. Here, it would be a conflict of interest for the Project Engineer to participate when this project comes before the Planning Commission. In fact, the Project Engineer recognized this requirement from the very outset and has acted in full compliance with the Conflicts Act. That is, he has publicly declared his interest in the project, and he has not participated in any vote, discussion, or deliberation of the project in the Planning Commission, nor will he. Since he has done exactly what the law requires, the Conflicts Act has been fully complied with, and it is completely legal and appropriate for the remaining members of the Planning Commission to consider the project on the merits – indeed, they have a duty to do so. |
| Q: When was Hull’s Creek Properties created? |
| A: Hulls Creek Properties is an LLC whose principals are Coastal Virginia Developers and Franciscus Homes. It was created for the purpose of developing this property in June, 2010 |
| Q: When did the City of Portsmouth enter into an agreement with Hull’s Creek Properties concerning the development of the former Port Norfolk Elementary School site? |
| A: July, 2010 |
| Q: When did the current zoning for this property become effective? |
| A: May 1, 2010 |
| Q: What was the process the City went through to update the zoning ordinance and how was public notification handled? |
A: • Between October 2008 and April 2010 numerous public hearings and public meeting were held. For the Zoning Ordinance specifically:
- Legal Ad in Virginian Pilot October 18, 2009
- Legal Ad in Virginian Pilot October 25, 2009
- Legal Ad in Virginian Pilot November 15, 2009
- Legal Ad in Virginian Pilot November 22, 2009
- Legal Ad in Virginian Pilot December 20, 2009
- Legal Ad in Virginian Pilot December 27, 2009
- Legal Ad in Virginian Pilot January 10, 2010
- Legal Ad in Virginian Pilot January 17, 2010
- Postcards were mailed ( as information to all property owners
on October 23, 2009
- Legal Notices (6 page letter) Mailed November 18, 2009
to all property owners.
- Planning Commission considered the item Nov 3, 2009,
December 1, 2009 and January 5, 2010
- City Council considered the item at Work Sessions on
February 9, 2009, March 9, 2009, December 7, 2009
- City Council considered the item at Public hearing
January 26, 2010 and at final reading February 9, 2010
|
| Q: What is the role of the Wetlands Board, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) as it relates to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) and the site? |
| A: No role. |
| Q: If Detroit Street is raised, will there be adverse impacts on flooding elsewhere? |
| A: No, the raising of Detroit St. would not have any impact on flooding anywhere else in the city. With the vast amount of water in the Elizabeth River, the Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, the change this would create is immeasurable. |
| Q: Does the City have the resources to address any additional public services that will be generated as a result of this development? |
| A: No need for new public services above and beyond that already provided and available by the City are expected as a result of this development. |
| Q: What site improvements will be required by the City for this property to be developed as described? |
| A: There are basic improvements required of any development that are also to be paid for by the developer. These include but are not limited to a public street in a dedicated Right of Way, connection to public water and sewer, private utilities (gas,electric,cable), public ROW lighting, and a graded site and storm drainage appropriately designed to accommodate the site and adjacent property and meet applicable codes. All these are required to be designed to the site and must meet with the approval of the city. |
| Q: What factors influence a determination as to whether or not the development will make a positive contribution to neighborhood quality in Port Norfolk? |
| A: The answer to this question is subjective and will be determined by City Council. Factors that may be considered include; offsite neighborhood improvements, character and quality of the homes proposed, price points for the homes, prior experience of the developer and builder, the phasing plan, establishment of a homeowners association, landscaping, open space, layout of the subdivision and other considerations. |
| Q: What environmental studies have been conducted on this site? Do these studies address all three properties proposed for sale? |
A: The City of Portsmouth conducted a Phase I ESA (Environmental Site Assessment) on the property subsequent to the demolition of the school building. That study indicated the need for additional investigation as is normally conducted in a Phase II ESA. Because the initial study indicated a need for additional analysis, the developer requested the MOI to contain language addressing the conduct of a Phase II. These studies are required by the development community before purchase in order to qualify for the "innocent landowner" protections by performing due diligence and all appropriate inquiry.
Hulls Creek Properties, LLC and the Department of Economic Development jointly selected Stokes Environmental Associates, Ltd. to conduct the Phase II. Stokes is a qualified environmental firm which has been used by the City on other occasions. The Phase II was jointly contracted and paid for; the City is to be reimbursed its investment in this work if the property is sold. As the previously conducted Phase I evaluated only the parcel on which the school was located, the current studies posted online address only that parcel. A separate and distinct Phase I is being undertaken on the two additional parcels and the resulting document will be posted online with the others. This study may or may not result in the need for a Phase II on those parcels.
In addition to the Phase I & II ESA, the Department of Economic Development and Hulls Creek Properties, LLC jointly commissioned Stokes to conduct a methane study. This study was deemed necessary as a result of persistent claims that methane was present. The results of this are posted online. |
| Q: When will a geotechnical investigation results be available to make the determination that pervious pavement will or will not be successful? If the determination is that pervious pavement will not be successful, then could the project move forward with impervious pavement of driveways and sidewalks? Will a geotechnical results report be posted on this website? |
| A: Geotechnical investigations and reports are the responsibility of the developer and must accompany the Major Subdivision request. If there is a determination that pervious pavement will not work the developer will be allowed to use regular pavement. These reports will not be posted on this website as they are part of the permits and approvals process and not the due diligence phase contemplated under the MOI. |
| Q: When will the Phase I ESA for the two smaller parcels be posted? |
| A: As soon as it is complete and the final copy is submitted to the City in electronic format. |
| Q: Is additional methane testing planned for the smaller parcels? |
| A: No additional testing is anticipated at this time. This is subject to change pending the outcome of the Phase I ESA being conducted on the parcels. |
| Q: If the development plan for the property changes, what obligation does the developer have to present these to the community? |
| A: The developer has committed to keeping the community informed about the development proposal and has held two community meetings to educate the residents in that area and solicit feedback. The developer also participated in a meeting hosted by the civic leagues and has presented the plan publically at a work session of City Council. If the plan changes, the developer is committed to a public process and will continue to engage the community. |
| Q: Has the developer indicated whether or not he wishes to proceed with the transaction of land? |
| A: Yes. The developer, in accordance with the MOI, indicated his intent to proceed with the acquisition of the property on August 23rd. |
| Q: What was the dollar cost to the City for the Phase I and II Environmental Assessments and the appraisal, the cost for the foundation/demolition study, and the estimate for the removal of the foundation? |
| A: The City has paid $4,000 for the Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment and Soil Boring Excavation. This represents 50% of the total cost and is to be reimbursed by the developer in the event of the property sale. Following the conduct of this study, the City expended an additional $2,362 to conduct a preliminary methane assessment and arsenic evaluation. The City paid $3,200 for the appraisal. The cost of the foundation survey is 42,200. No foundation exists as the building has been determined to have been built on piles and consequently there is no removal necessary. |
| Q: At what points in the process will the proposed development be voted on by City Council? |
| A: This is the next public action that will occur. The adoption of the MOI was the first. It will occur when the developer and City have met all the obligations contained in the MOI. |
| Q: At what point in the process will the proposed development be on a Planning Commission agenda? |
| A: 60 days after an application for a Major Subdivision is submitted. |
| Q: If the developer has submitted a Preliminary Major Subdivision Plan that has been deemed suitable for review by staff, has the developer also submitted all calculations for drainage? Will those be posted as a downloadable document on your website? |
| A: There has been no submission to the Planning Commission. Submissions of any and all documents as part of an application by the developer are a matter of public record. No determination has been made as to whether documents submitted during that process will be handled any differently for this project. |
| Q: If a subdivision plan with 40 lots submitted, is that considered a "major subdivision"? What about one with 23 lots? Can a plan that intends to build 10 or more homes on it be considered a "minor subdivision"? |
| A: Depending on how the project is legally subdivided, it may or may not be a major subdivision. The significant distinction between the current plan (23 lots) and the former plan (40 lots) is the elimination of the newly constructed road. When a new road is to be constructed, the subdivision is automatically considered a major subdivision. However, under the new plan, there are 6 proposed lots abutting the existing Douglas Ave; 6 proposed lots and 2 open space parcel abutting the existing Detroit Street. These may qualify as minor subdivisions. It may be helpful to note however, that even with minor subdivisions, infrastructure meeting the City's requirements (e.g., drainage and utilities) must still be provided and the same city code criteria apply. No subdivision applications have been submitted for review at this time. |
| Q: Has Hulls Creek Properties, LLC, talked with the city about a plan other than the one originally submitted or the one presented at the September 27, 2010, public work session? |
| A: No |
| Q: Was the purpose of the Old Port Norfolk School Site page to answer public inquiries questions and to keep the public aware of the process regarding the development of the former PNES site? |
| A: The purpose of the website is to make available public information regarding the characteristics of the site and the developer’s submittals to the City as they become available. All work undertaken by the City, and work submitted to the City by the developer, lies in the public domain and is therefore available to the public. The website is designed to aggregate that work in one place for convenience and ease of access by the public. The website is also designed as a place where questions that are frequently asked, or that may have broad appeal to those interested in the project, are posted with the answers. The website is not designed as a place where speculation or statements by proponents or opponents are posted. It is not intended to be the only resource available to the public and is not designed to provide public notices. Persons interested in the project are encouraged to monitor the City’s webpage as it regards public meetings, ordinances and information not addressed herein. City staff is also responsive to the public directly by telephone as well. |
| Q: Should residents be concerned about contaminants on the property and any exposure that may result from the City’s and developer’s work on the property? |
| A: Soil sample testing indicated that the concentrations of heavy metals found in fill material samples is consistent with typical background soil conditions, and, with the exception of arsenic in all samples, and lead in one sample, were below US EPA risk based thresholds for residential soils. Further, results indicate that arsenic observed in fill soils on-site does not appear to be a human-derived contaminant, and represents naturally occurring background concentrations. Based on the investigation, lead levels at the site do not appear excessive and do not appear to represent a hazard to future site occupants or adjacent properties. It is important to note that areas of the site that have been disturbed by the City and the developer are not designated play areas or playgrounds and these areas are not authorized to be used as such. |